Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/01

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

Uploads of Gameguest38

Would someone else mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Gameguest38? Gameguest38 9s a new editor who has jsut uploaded a bunch of radio logos as "own work". I've already tagged File:WQNC.png for speedy as {{Logo}}, and others have been tagged by someone else as {{No source since}}. There are some files such as File:Chase for the Championship.png, however, which though not likely "own work" may be PD. Another concern is that because the uploader does not seem to have any understanding of copyright or Commons policies, they might not understand the warnings already left on their user talk and just decide to go on another uploading spree, which means more cleaning up after the fact. Is there a warning template that can be added to the user's talk page besides {{End of copyvios}} since that one seems to be for a final warning? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuked most of the logos. We could use a friendlier template for sure. I am not aware of any nicely worded warning-template. Cleaning up the rest, tagging, and sourcing. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
For two logos I couldn't find a good source. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Hedwig in Washington. Maybe something like en:Template:uw-nonfree could be tweaked for use on Commons. Wikipedia oftens uses 4-level templates for its warnings in which level is a fairly bland more informational type of warning/notification and level 4 is for final warnings. Of course, it would have been possible or maybe best to leave a personal message instead; a template would just makes it a bit easier and would be the same everytime regardless of you used it. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to check all those files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that could fit the bill. Unfortunately we are pretty alone in the template construction market, the task force doesn't seem to respond to requests anymore. Sometimes I do add a note by hand, but the pure amount of incidents doesn't allow for everyone to get nicely reminded by hand. It is just impossible. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsure what to do about a copyright status I was messaged about.

I received a message that I should specify the licence for this image, but I didn't create the original image; I merely edited it. Am I supposed to do something? —Bromskloss (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The uploader is Jonnie Nord, formerly going by the user name Zaphod, who is using a custom license template {{Zaphod}} to license his uploads under the GNU-FDL and CC-BY-SA. Apparently, he's using this template since 2005. So, this file has valid copyright tags, but embedded in a custom tag which the bot YiFeiBot apparently doesn't recognize and therefore added this file to "Media without a license". JuTa (you added the "No license since" tag), what is the correct approach here? Just remove the "No license" tagging? Should the bot operator be told? I think there are other custom templates like Zaphod's. Or is this way of licensing not acceptable, should the custom templates be replaced by standard templates? In any case: Yes, Bromskloss, it's not your fault, you don't have to do anything (the notification has also been posted to Jonnie Nord's talk page). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The following...
<noinclude>
[[Category:User custom license tags]]
</noinclude>
should be added to such license templates. - Reventtalk 22:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
here's the approach: stop the bot until it complies with the "hybrid license" nonsense, and block the admin. just look at User talk:Jonnie Nord for all the false license notifications.
until you change the hybrid license and force migrate to CC-BY. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ringtheater Ruine 1881.jpg

Hatau added a reference to a non-free copyright license to this file (which is also available as File:Ringtheater Ruine 1881 edit.jpg and File:Ringtheater Ruine 1881b.jpg) in an apparent attempt to discourage reuse. Is there a legal basis for this claim (hard to imagine unless the photo remained unpublished for a long time)? If yes, the file should be deleted; if no, the licensing claim should be removed. Can the source information be improved? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mathias Weingartshofer died around 1885 and the copyright term for Austria is 70 years pma. So this photo is now in the public domain and the non-commercial claim is bogus even if Hatau was a descendant of Weingartshofer. And is there any evidence that Weingartshofer took this photograph at all? Anyhow, we should adjust the licence to PD-art though because the image was taken from a third-party catalogue. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverted and warning left. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nmb logo.jpg

This file appears to be the logo of the Tanzanian bank en:National Microfinance Bank. File has been licensed as "own work" which seems unlikely, but it looks like it might be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. If it's country of origin was the United States, then I think "PD-textlogo" would be an easy call, but there wasn't anything in either COM:TOO or COM:CRT about Tanzania. Is this OK for Commons or should it be treated as COM:FU? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You can try although it is difficult to say where is the threshold of originality in Tanzania. It may be close to Britain's one, in fact. Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

flickruser:28567825@N03

The Flickr user 28567825@N03 / nostri-imago / Cliff has uploaded an enormous number of images to Flickr under free licenses, but it appears many of them are not his copyright. Searches for his two IDs on Flickr yield 3,409 + 2,753 = 6,162 total uploads originating from this Flickr account, so there's too many to properly review. File:The Catch Dwight Clark 1982.jpg is at least one instance of certain Flickr washing from this account, but there are many other obviously inappropriate images among the uploads now on Commons. Complicating things, the Flickr user appears to often give his camera to a friend to take pictures with, so even the pictures that aren't obvious violations may not be his copyright (e.g. [1] [2], which are pictures of the user himself so cannot be taken by him). I think it's likely best to delete all of the uploads that stem from this Flickr user given the widespread issues, but maybe someone else has another feasible idea. ~ Rob13Talk 03:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of them are in Category:Files from cliff1066 Flickr stream. Some of them are photos of old paintings, that may be public domain anyway. What are some examples of inappropriate images? --ghouston (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
what makes you say there are too many to review? you realize there are 300,000 images without metadata? why don't you make some maintenance categories and start assessing ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Magazine cover w permissions from publisher and subject?

Hello! I'm a newbie on Wikimedia (though have edited Wikipedia). I have read the FAQ. I would like to post a scan of the cover of the Los Angeles Lesbian News from 1996 so that I can include it in an article I'm writing about the first lesbian motor officers in the Los Angeles Police Dept. I have permission from the officer in the image, the publisher and the author of the article. What do I need to do to get the image onto Wikimedia--or can I? Thanks so much for assistance. --DaltonHird (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@DaltonHird: To upload a file to Commons, when it's not your own work, the copyright holder(s) should agree to put a free license on the file (see COM:LICENSING), and they should verify it by sending permission using OTRS. --ghouston (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The permission given must be under a free licence with no commercial or derivative restrictions because some people give permission but for Wikipedia use only and unfortunately that is not enough for us. If that permission is not given then, at least on the enwiki, such a cover can be accepted but only in an article about the newspaper itself under their non-free policy that you will find here so long as all 10 criteria are met. Ww2censor (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thank you.
@Ww2censor: Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talk • contribs) 03:21, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Lin-Manuel Miranda during a performance of Hamilton

I am looking for additional input on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lin-Manuel Miranda in Hamilton.jpg, since it looks like it will be getting very technical. Please place your input on the deletion request page and not here.

Here's the background. I nominated the photo because, according to the 3rd page of the Playbill, "The use of any recording device, either audio or video, and the taking of photographs, either with or without flash, is strictly prohibited...The use of cell phone in the theatre is prohibited by New York City law. In my opinion, this is then a copyright violation, unless proof is found that the producers of Hamilton released this picture. Sandstein, who uploaded the picture, then said that this would fall under Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. I then also pointed out that personality rights should apply as well, as realized that since this was getting technical, I should ask for more input.

Once again, please place your input on the deletion request page, so that we can more easily track the input. Elisfkc (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sandstein is right. Elisfkc, please read (again) Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What!

There are currently 8977 images in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images right now. How many of these are even useful, even if the license is correct? @Fæ: Ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fæ#European_Space_Agency. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Now 0 files in category. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Halloween_Oreos,_Fall_2013.jpg

Are the 2013 Halloween embosses of Oreo cookies copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'm quite certain that the cookies themselves are utilitarian objects, and so the cookies 'as a whole' cannot be copyrighted. The actual 'design' of the embosses themselves might be, but they are de minimis here. The cookies would be protected as en:trade dress. - Reventtalk 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
...I don't know. de minimis is not easy to argue. The cookies and the designs are highly emphasized and centralized. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think de minimis can be used here, as the image's whole purpose seems to be to show what is different on the embosses from your average Oreo. CrowTalk 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with George Ho and Crow here, the whole point of the image (including the title) recognizes the brand Oreos as the subject; and I can't argue for de minimus even with the large white space all around. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Without necessarily commenting on the general question of copyrightablity, the utilitarian argument above would fail. Just as an image of Bart Simpson would not be utilitarian by virtue of appearing on a T-Shirt, a Halloween character would not be utilitarian by virtue of appearing on a cookie. (The former is the very example given at COM:DW here.) This is due to the conceptual separability doctrine: the copyrighted work (Bart or a Halloween character) is recognizable independent of the utilitarian function of the object on which it appears (i.e., The shirt is a shirt with or without Bart; Bart is recognizable as Bart without the shirt. So too with the cookies.) As a general proposition, bakeries in the United States routinely refuse to produce customized cakes requested to contain copyrighted characters. Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Inviting elcobbola, Crow, Revent, and Ellin Beltz to Commons:Deletion requests/. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I commented there. Suffice it to say that normally I would have agreed, except for case law (cited there) where it was determined both that the 'design' of a food item is inseparable from it's utilitarian function 'as food', and that the design of a food item (which is perishable) is not 'fixed in a tangible form' for the purposes of the Copyright Act. Google searches about the 'copyrightability of food' show much legal discussion of this case, and there seems to be a widespread understanding that food is not copyrightable under US law. - Reventtalk 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Old photos from a book

I'm considering uploading some 19th century photos from a book published in 1987 - [3]. The photographs were by G.R. Lambert & Co, a photographic studio that sold prints of photographs as souvenirs to tourists in South East Asia, the company was also apparently the photographer to the King of Siam. No photographers' names are given for some of the photos, but I would assume that the copyright belonged to the company, which closed in 1918. Photographs from other companies are also given in the book. Some names are given for some photos, for example K Freiberg for some photos from the 1870s. Some of the photographs apparently come from the collection of The Royal Commonwealth Society Library, unfortunately the photos are not given on their website (the Cambridge site also charged for use of old photos, they appear to claim copyright for old photos which presumably include the ones I'm interested in). The photographs I'm thinking of uploading are dated 1860s to 1880s, am I correct in assuming that these photographs would be out of copyright? Hzh (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the country of origin and date of the first publication. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The photographs are of Malaysia and Singapore, the company that took the photos was based in Singapore with branches in other South East Asian countries. I would assume they were published soon after they were taken (they were sold as souvenirs in those countries at that time, although I wouldn't know for sure if they had indeed published them). However, I'm slightly puzzled by the claim of copyright by the Royal Commonwealth Society Library whose archive is in Cambridge, UK. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
i would upload them, but there are some admins around here who will scrutinize anonymous works. i would create a category for your upload, like Category:Photographs by G.R. Lambert & Co. from KITLV and Category:Photographs by the studio of G.R. Lambert & Co., i would make a creator template using information here http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/rcs_photographers/entry.php?id=172 . i would use com:pattypan with photograph template.
i'm not puzzled, many institutions use NC and "sweat of the brow" and TOU in the mistaken belief they can pay for scanning with fees. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I suspect that some UK institutions are relying on a claim of 'typographical copyright' for their digital editions of PD works. Such a claim is, of course, completely bogus in the case of a 'faithful reproduction'. - Reventtalk 07:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
typically the social media folks get it, and work with us, and we have some mass upload wins. it's the solicitors who have been captured by the ip bar, who are fighting the last war. envy will convert where ideas could not. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Images of the alphabet/script

I have uploaded to the Commons images of alphabets for some languages. These images contain only lists (lists have been created using common fonts) of signs and examples of the usage of those symbols (1 symbol — 1 word). So, I have uploaded these files under the license {{PD-script}}

Can you please check my files on the copyright violation (because I'm going to upload more similar images of different alphabets)? Here is a list of files, which I have uploadedː

File:Mundari alphabet.png

File:Egbema orthography.png

File:Kị́rị́kẹ̄ alphabet.png

File:Sebatbeit syllabary.png

File:ፍደሳት ብሊነው ናተማምድ.png

File:ባስኬት ፊዳላ Basket Fidala (Saba).png

File:Sar alphabet.gif - صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks ok to me. Neither the fonts as such nor the tables of alphabetical letters are copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mcbe13502

practically everything (s)he uploaded is copyright violations. I don't know how to request mass delete, so please do it somebody. Tnx. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.104.36.48 (talk) 14:06, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

All these files are currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mcbe13502. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Picasa images now in Google photos

I don't see any discussion on this topic which is a problem for reviewers. Now that Picasa is closed, the migrated images do not show any copyright status, unless I'm missing something. I even logged in to my own account and could not see anywhere to add the copyright status for any images that had previously been on Picasa. So, in trying to review images such as File:Stanislas Robin.jpg and File:Jordan Dezaria.jpg what are we going to do other than tag them as having no permission and then they will be deleted. I presume someone will have to update Commons:Picasa Web Albums files and presumably close down User:Picasa Review Bot 2. Ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Going further, this is a major problem. Photos posted before the transition from Picasa Web to Google Photos will hide the license, that is is considered a Copyright violation from Google, as the CC licenses are irrevocable. I think that this should be discussed directly with Google, if possible, with Wikimedia Legal. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
google does not care. the CC - sharing, is now switched to the TOU, and that's the way they want it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a violation at all. There is nothing preventing the author from changing the license at the source, or taking it down. If someone copied the work and is still using it under the original license, that is also fine (though helps a lot if that can be proved). If that makes licenses harder to verify, rats, but it's something we may have to just deal with, unless Google can be convinced to show that information on the web. I imagine this will be an issue trying to verify crops of Picasa images since the bots may not be able to match the image exactly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
CC license is irrevocable. hence the flickr license verification, since the subject comes up. now we have flickr license "revision" on a massive scale. we seem to have lost the crowd sharing war. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
My concern stems from the fact that, for the future, with the migration to Google photos, it is no longer possible to review images hosted there because the copyright status is not visible and therefore unknown. Though as Amitie 10g suggests it may be possible to extract the copyright. Of course those images that still point to picasa or have already received a good review, either by the bot or by human review, are not the problem and as we know the license is not revocable. BTW, @Slowking4: don't know what you mean by TOU. Ww2censor (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
terms of use. [4] it is a corporate tactic to control media on their site. rather than empower the user to share under a CC license, impose "house rules" that give the right to google to reuse for profit without sharing. most people do not read TOU and do not care. when your nice photo startup is bought by google, then the startup values are sold to the corporate values. i guess we will have to "trust" uploaders from google photo that they have the rights. or we could treat them like facebook. lol. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know that acronym. Maybe I will at least move my own images out of Google's control. Ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
forewarned is forearmed. the prospect of pixel cookie is a little disturbing. better to take work to partners that enable sharing and creative control, and then link at popular commercial places. or put the low res at FB & G. and archive high res elsewhere. there is a price for convenience. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Commerical photo agencies charge for public domain images

Just an advisory not to trust the commercial photo agencies to know if an image is copyrighted or not. For example, if you go to http://www.apimages.com/search, and sort by oldest, you'll see the Associated Press asserting copyright and charging for copies of works from the 18th and 19th century, including the Declaration of Independence! Assuming good faith on their part, it appears that they do not believe in Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag or Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing prevents them from selling copies of public domain images if there are people willing to pay for them. However asserting copyright over these images can be regarded as a fraud. Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
but when they send a dunning notice to Carol Highsmith, they may get sued. [5] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: FYI that case was dismissed, as it was determined that she had placed her works in the public domain and so Getty was fully entitled to 'do as they will' with them, including selling them. She did apparently get some (undisclosed) settlement for the claim of 'misleading business practices', however. - Reventtalk 07:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
surprise, they found a federal judge of the ip bar - they settled out of court [6]. sending fradulent notices, might well get you a DMCA put back and class action for false representation. maybe she needs to say CC + SA in her gift document. i wonder if getty agreed to stop sending false notices. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg

en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg (uploaded in September 2016) is an updated version of a non-free file uploaded locally to Wikipedia in 2006. I can no longer see the previous versions, so I cannot tell how this latest version is different. The latest version does, however, only appear to be slightly different in color to File:British biometric passport.jpg, which has been on Commons since 2011. If the licensing on the Commons version is acceptable, then the non-free file uploaded to Wikipedia now seems unnecessary and the Commons file can be simply "updated" to show the latest version, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)PD-UKGov

It seems to be a design that hasn't changed since at least 1950, so it's likely that {{PD-UKGov}} applies, as well as {{Insignia}}. --ghouston (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ghouston. Do you think the difference between the two versions is significant enough to keep each file separate? I can fix the licensing of the non-free version and tag it for a move to Commons as a separate file, or I can suggest that the uploader simply update the Commons file and then tag the non-free version for deletion per en:WP:F8. Either would accomplish the desired goal, but I'm not sure if two of essentially the same files are needed on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
They should be kept as separate files on Commons, unless there's an exact match: there's an entire category Category:Passports of the United Kingdom. --ghouston (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Between the two files you mentioned, they are very similar covers, but differ slightly in colour and text positions. I'd say it could be transferred. --ghouston (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

is using CC-BY-NC material within a CC-BY-SA material on wikimedia commons with a disclaimer possible ?

Hey everyone,

in the past I have created a lot of open educational resources (cf. Videos and Slides for the Web Science MOOC on wikiversity. We created all the materials ourselves or reused stuff from wikimedia commons or sometimes icons that were in the public domain. which is why we have been certain that we can upload the materials on Wikimedia Commons by using CC-BY-SA license.

But now since the topic of our course is becoming more sophisticated I would like to reuse graphics from this url http://www.nature.com/articles/srep00335 which are licensed CC-BY-NC. I cannot reproduce these graphics since I do not have the data sets at hand that have been used to create them.

I understood so far that Wikimedia Commons does not wish to host materials that have the NC tag. However I see that there are materials on Wikimedia Commons that have an NC license c.f. File:Pardalotus_with_nesting_material.jpg

I understand that CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC are not compatible if I use two materials from various sources and remix them (c.f.: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Wiki/cc_license_compatibility )

However I could not find a clear answer to the question weather I can reuse CC-BY-NC materials within my slide deck an publish my Slidedeck with CC-BY-SA and the emphasize that some works within the slide deck are not CC-BY-SA but CC-BY-NC. On the other side it would be easiest if I was just allowed here to upload some of the materials of our corse with CC-BY-NC license.

-- Renepick (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

NC means NonCommercial, i.e. that the copyright holder does not allow commercial use. NC works are by definition not free and thus may not be used on Commons unless their inclusion is merely incidental (obviously not the case when you create derivative works based on them). As for why we do not allow nonfree uploads please see this page's header.    FDMS  4    13:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Pardalotus_with_nesting_material.jpg is also licensed with the GNU Free Documentation License, which is accepted on Commons. The presence of the NC license doesn't affect that. --ghouston (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
welcome to the commons hypocrisy. they will want you to strip out the NC images to host here. the hybrid licenses are an historical failure by the community to resolve the transition from GDFL to CC. you would have to have permission from nature.com to change the license from NC to GDFL / NC per Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits which is a byzantine idea not understood by non-wikimedians.
you could upload to internet archive or prezi or you blog. or bring it over to english wikisource, they might agree to host it. discussion here [7] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
oh, so "NC" = "not NC only" but "for media" = for media only. i look forward to your defense of images in open journals. see also history here Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Amphibian and reptile conservation - the international journal devoted to the worldwide preservation and management of amphibian and reptilian diversity (1996) , Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Avicennia (revista de ecología oceanología biodiversidad tropical) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Specific-biomarkers-for-stochastic-division-patterns-and-starvation-induced-quiescence-under-febs0278-1299-SD5.ogv etc. etc. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider works where additional rights are given to NC reusers (i.e. multi-licensed works with one of the licenses being free) to be "NC works".    FDMS  4    13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that a compilation of works with mutually incompatible licenses is OK (you just need to properly attribute each one in accordance with the license) - there is a distinction between adaptation and merely using the works as-is as part of a larger work. This is the difference between the GPL and LGPL for software: the GPL does not allow proprietary software to link to it as a library, while the LGPL does (and is hence more permissive). Free content licenses generally don't make this distinction, and almost everything is similar to the LGPL in this respect. So you can release the whole thing as CC-BY-SA (or more specifically, your contributions in selecting and arranging it), with the understanding that it can't really be used for commercial purposes unless the NC content is removed (alternatively, a commercial usage would require printing out the entire GFDL even if it's just one photo licensed that way). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As linked above https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Wiki/cc_license_compatibility says that collages of differently licensed works can not combine CC-BY-SA and CC-NC works. Certainly you can't release a work as CC-BY-SA unless the work is all licensed as CC-BY-SA, and any attempt to do so is misleading to the people downstream. You can probably put both CC-BY-SA and CC-NC works in the same slide show, but not license the overall thing as CC-BY-SA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Remix != use. I guess I should have clarified: the license on the slide show could have a disclaimer like "slide show licensed under CC-BY-SA, individual images used under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Legally I am pretty sure (as stated by King of ♥ ) that it is not a problem to reuse part of the work that is CC-BY-NC within another self created piece of work which I license CC-BY-SA together with a disclaimer that only the new works are CC-BY-SA and that it contains images and text snippets which are CC-BY-NC which will not be affected by the new license. It would be great however if someone from Wikimedia Foundation or a regional chapter could give official advice weather this is true or not. Having that said and assuming there is no legal problem the question remains: Is it ok for this community to host the slide deck under a CC-BY-SA license even though not all images inside are free? I am very much on the free and open movement (therefor I know all the arguments from all sides) and which is why I put quite some effort in the existing teaching materials to free a lot of content by recreating it. But as stated in my opening post for some parts of this course this is just not possible since I cannot reproduce the content since the data sets in order to do so are not available.
I think it is indeed a Question of merely incidental use (as stated by    FDMS  4    ). The thing is if a few cases like this of the entire course are not welcome here because the policies of this community are so strict I unfortunately have to seriously consider changing the place where I run the remainder of the course. There are other platforms that are less restrictive by supporting all kinds and mixes of CC-licensed materials. -- Renepick (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Nonfree content doesn't hurt, Wikimedia projects just generally aren't the right place for it (with a few exceptions). Personally, I believe there is a much greater demand for media or encyclopedic content that can be reused by anyone, for any purpose, even commercially, than there is for such learning resources.    FDMS  4    13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Adaptation and Collection. Note the last sentences: "When you include free licensed content in a collection, you still must adhere to the license conditions governing your use of the material incorporated. For example, material under any of the non commercial licenses cannot be used commercially." Jee 10:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi everyone. Can someone please tell me whether these two images (1 & 2) of the Princess of Wales can be uploaded on the Commons or not? They have been uploaded on Flickr and based on the copyright status provided there and Wikimedia's guidelines it seems that there's no obstacle in uploading them but I wanted to check it with some experienced users here on the Commons to make sure there's no copyright issue. Keivan.fTalk 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious, in that it does not appear likely that "Paisley Scotland" owns the copyrights... they may be okay, but lack evidence IMO. - Reventtalk 23:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hrm. The second one is from "Newcastle City Libraries, Accession Number 058792". The Flickr account is by the Newcastle Libraries, and they marked it "public domain". That could only be in the public domain if the author gave up their rights (PD-author). It's entirely possible that happened by whoever donated it to the library. They mark all of their photos public domain it looks like... where really "Creative Commons Zero" would be the better tag if they are disclaiming their rights. That one ... could be OK, but there are doubts, and it's not the best copyright statement to rely on. Wether that rises to "significant doubt" I'm not sure. It's certainly not a straightforward case of license laundering -- there is a public domain statement by the probable rights holder.
The first one... appears to be taken by a John Macintyre ("shot on B/W film Illford HP5 and develloped Illford ID11 one +one"), and submitted to the paisley.org.uk website. It is unclear if the copyright was transferred, or if Mr. Macintyre did in fact agree to the license. According to what seems to be his page at http://www.modelmayhem.com/Gillespic , he is a freelance photographer who has taken photos for local newspapers. Again, this may be OK, but there is the uncertainty of who owns the copyright -- would be best to get a statement right from Mr. Macintyre himself, either that he transferred copyright to the website organization (in which case the Flickr license is perfectly fine), or if he retained copyright, in which case he would have to license it himself, if he is OK with it appearing here. He may have a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/john.macintyre.12 as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg So the second one can still be uploaded, right? What would you do in such case? I don't want to upload an image that has a high possibility of deletion. If you believe there's no obstacle in uploading it, and it doesn't have serious copyright issues, please let me know.
The first one, well, as you said, I believe that there's still a chance to make sure what the copyright status of this image is. Would it be best to contact paisley.org.uk to see if they have had the permission to publish this photo, or should we contact Mr. Macintyre himself? And how can we contact him? It seems that he doesn't have an e-mail, because I think contacting through e-mail would be more formal. Keivan.fTalk 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Keivan.f The second one is probably going to be a matter of opinion. I could see several folks arguing to keep it, and some may be too nervous and vote for deletion, if it came to that. I would not vote to delete, but I probably wouldn't upload it myself either, at least without getting some clarification from the Library as to the photo's provenance and what they meant by "public domain". So it's a matter of what you deem "high possibility" I guess :-) It's close, and very arguable. The first one... probably would be better to get further information first, and yes, preferably from Mr. Macintyre himself. If he does own the copyright and is OK with a license, he should probably send that permission email via the COM:OTRS process (see the page there for the format, though he could also simply OK the Flickr license). He has a page on another site https://purpleport.com/portfolio/gillespic/ ... but yes, not sure if there is an email address anywhere or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I checked the Facebook page and I couldn't find any contact information, and he hasn't been active on this website since nearly two years ago. This website also requires some sort of membership, but I don't see any chance here either. I think I have no choice but to contact paisley.org.uk, or maybe risk and upload the image and let the users decide its fate and deal with it. :) Keivan.fTalk 10:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I looked around all the links for John Macintyre and there don't seem to be any emails easily found. However, it appear that the Paisley.org.uk shows some of his work as well as their Flickr photostream but there is a media contact email on this webpage so you might try that. Ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ww2censor That's exactly what I wanted to do. It seems that it's the only way I have. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 01:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical photographs from 1916

Is it permitted by placing the document Memo to Chief of Naval Operations, Office of Naval Intelligence, 22 January 1931 (Geographical files, HRS, HQMC), with historical photographs from 1916 on commons? They are images of 100 years ago from Monte Cristi in the Dominican Republic, FROM THE ALBUM OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT H. DUNLAP, USMC. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The document is US government work and most likely all the photos were taken by military personnel, so the license, no matter their age would be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Have you checked out the possibility of higher quality versions at the Library of Congress? Ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the photographs were from the personal album of Brigadier General Robert H. Dunlap, who died in 1931, and were later donated by his widow in 1948. So... probably {{PD-US-no notice}} more accurately. But they should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Polysomes.jpg

File is describe as an image taken from the journal Nature. Can it be assumed to have been released under a free license or is OTRS verification needed? In addition, File:Pseudogene1jpg.jpg was uploaded as "own work" by the same uploader. Is OTRS verification needed for this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

For images that had been published before they were uploaded to Commons OTRS confirmation is definitely required. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected the license for File:Polysomes.jpg and added a source URLs for the image, page where image is located, and details about the license. —RP88 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0 and RP88 for taking a look and helping to sort this out. Does anything need to be done about the Pseudogene file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0 and RP88 and Marchjuly. I'm the newbie putz responsible for the mess, but I'm getting better at it, and hope to have decades of uploading without problems in the future. Feel free to delete the pseudogene file. I'm going to replace it with something much better, IMHO. I'm going to add a couple more questions below. Thanks again! DennisPietras (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Licensing below CC2.5

I've uploaded an image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg that is a collage including some cropped images originally licensed at CC2.0. When I used the upload form, the earliest CC version it offered to select was 2.5, so that is what I did? Was I supposed to do something different? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you consider the collage as a separate work, it must be license under cc-by-sa or a later version of the same license (see [8]. So, you can theoretically license it as cc4.0-by-sa. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik0 I'm more confused than before. I looked at cc4.0-by-sa. It states, in part "ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same (my bold emphasis) license as the original." I feel like I remixed, transformed and built upon the 4 images of the collage, and, believing that before I uploaded the image, I wanted to license the file under cc2.0, but the web form wouldn't let me go lower than 2.5. You see the circularity of my problem. What I really want to do is think "OK, I've got permission from the copyright holders to use their images, so I'm going to call the collage image MY WORK and simply license it under cc4.0" but I get the feeling that is contrary to wp policies. Please try again to help me understand. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NIH Free license or YouTube non-commercial license?

Thanks Ruslik0 and RP88 and Marchjuly and Ww2censor for helping with my past snafus, so I bring this to your attention. I've posted an image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H2AZchromcompjpg.jpg which is derived from 2 screen shots from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1XFdizye7c&t=597s starting at about 13:30 and a few seconds later. That video is presented by an NIH employee at the NIH, recorded as an NIHvcast and then posted by the NIHvcast folks to YouTube, where it is licensed under the "Standard YouTube License" described at https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms. I believe those terms prohibit commercial use, yet we all "know" that stuff from the National Institues of Health is supposed to be freely available. This is not going to be an isolate image. There is a wealth of great images I hope to capture by the snipping tool and post on the commons, so I think now is the time for you folks, and maybe even Jimbo or his attorneys, to figure out if this practice is acceptable. To complicate this even more, the NIH videocasting and podcasting site also has the same seminar posted at https://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?Live=13270&bhcp=1. This is all so confusing to me, and well above my pay grade. Thanks. DennisPietras (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

i would link to the NIH source to get the template:PD-USGov-NIH, and maybe an com:OTRS to get the Template:PD-USGov-NIH-NIAID-Videos. maybe we need to have a word with User:Hildabast about the youtube license. ping her on english. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
[EC] @DennisPietras: That practice is unavoidable – as far as I know, YouTube only supports two licenses: The default nonfree one and the CC BY 3.0, none of which apply to U.S. government works in the public domain. If you are absolutely certain that {{PD-USGov-NIH}} applies to the work itself conflicting licensing information on a third-party website doesn't change anything about that. (In fact, you have the right to take a photograph, release it under a free license on website A yet state the exact same work is nonfree on website B – reusers would then still be able to reuse the work under the terms of the release on website A no matter where they got it from.)    FDMS  4    17:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Finnusertop and Cullen328 and Ruslik0 and RP88 and Marchjuly and Ww2censor and FDMS4 and Slowking4 After reading some of the links above which indicate that I should be certain the images were not made by contractors, I went to the NIH videocast faq page at https://videocast.nih.gov/faq/ One of the faq's on that page is "Can I add, share or embed a VideoCast past event to my web site, blog or profile?" Clicking that links to https://videocast.nih.gov/faq/#embed, which answers the question thusly "Yes. In the video player menu at top left, select share video to send email or copy syntax to your site, blog or profile". Since they don't say that your website has to be non-commercial, I think I've got permission to do even more than I dared in the past. Specifically: some of the NIHvcasts are of invited speakers to the NIH who work at universities that are not affiliated with the NIH. I was going to stay away from them, but based on the faq, it seems that those presentations by outside speakers also meet the wp requirement for free content. Comments? DennisPietras (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: I'm afraid that would be going a bit too far – here at Commons we need content to be explicitly released under terms allowing use and modifications by anyone, for any purpose, even commercially. A brief explanation of that principle is available at COM:PCP.    FDMS  4    19:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
not too far at all. given the fact that the source is NIH, we can safely presume that it is a PD-USGov source. the idea that you are going to dictate the rights statement that the US government will use, before you accept their content is dysfunctional. there is a lot of content from them. we can confirm with the NIH personnel via email. video of outside experts by NIH is PD-NIH with a com:personality rights tag. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
DennisPietras was referring to works from external speakers. A stream of a presentation being made available on a NIH site doesn't make all the works used by the speaker PD.    FDMS  4    19:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I won't grab stuff from non-NIH speakers. The material from NIH employees on the NIHvcasts is so extensive I wouldn't be able to get to it all before new, relevant material is added, so I'll be constantly up to my eyeballs with material. Thanks all. DennisPietras (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright term for corporate works

Hello, I'm looking to upload a scan of an architectural drawing. I believe the copyright holder is the architect, who died in 1944 (which would make the work PD based on 70 pma), but it could be the client, York City Council. Both the architect and the client are/were based in the united Kingdom. If the latter is the case, what is the copyright term? In the States it appears that copyright for corporate ownership expires 95 years from publication (which would put it out of copyright in the US) but I haven't been able to find the rule for the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment- HJ Mitchell, the question of who owns the copyright depends on weather the architect was an employee of York City Council as at the time the work was created. If this is the case, the copyright holder of the work is York City Council and that would falls under the Crown copyright. Crown copyright for published works generally lasts for 50 years since the first publication. The images could be tagged with {{PD-BritishGov}}. Happy editing. Wikicology (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, but the situation is more complicated than that. The question of who owns the copyright is secondary, but the architect was not an employee of the council but was commissioned to design a war memorial for them. And Crown Copyright would not apply in this case because it only applies to works of central government, not local councils (in much the same way that the copyright exemption for works of the US federal government don't apply to state governments). What I really need to know is how long copyright lasts in the UK when the copyright holder is an organisation rather than a person, because if that has expired the drawing is out of copyright regardless of whether the copyright rests with the architect or the council. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Files by user:Rainerhaufe

Good morning together, I hope this is the right page for my request. Can somebody please check out the files uploaded by user:Rainerhaufe. He claims that the files he uploads are public domain because they are older than 70 years. However, many files are from 1970 or 1980 or so, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MAV_M63.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MAV_V32.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fahrmotor_BR_120.jpg and many more. --134.61.179.228 10:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Image 5382545 Fourlined Plant Bug Adult.jpg

I don't know how to handle this. On one hand it seems to belong to usda.gov, on the other hand the image is tagged cc.by.nc 3.0 on the linked source page. --Achim (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It would only belong to usda.gov if its author had worked for usda when here took the image. I am not sure that this is true. Ruslik (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Devchonka

These pictures were uploaded by Domitori who says they were given him by the photographer Devchonka who had released them in the public domain. Are they OK or do they all need a OTRS ticket?

--Carnby (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't rely on that statement alone, thus evidence of permission should be sent to our support team. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If they were previously published on the Internet, we would need OTRS. In 2007, the OTRS process was getting more firmly established, though COM:GOF does not qualify them. Dunno... given that these do not appear to be Internet photos, and the longish time frame they were uploading images from that other particular user, I'm guessing most likely they are OK. Ones from 2007 are arguable that they followed process (especially as many were first uploaded to en-wiki and transferred here; OTRS policies may have taken a bit longer to get established over there). Ones from 2009 were not following policy. But, it does appear the user has had problems with OTRS in the past -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:C22693-gorbanevskaya02.jpg. Dunno if DRs are worth it, but (especially for the 2009 ones) it would be within policy. But realistically, I don't think they are an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian Licence for Open Government Data (NLOD)

Norwegian authorities has specified a license for open government data. This licence grants you the right to copy, use and distribute information, provided you acknowledge the contributors and comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in this licence. The full license text is available in English: [9]. According to this post (in Norwegian), Gisle Hannemyr (project director at Creative Commons Norway) considers NLOD to be compatible with CC-BY 4.0. I would like to create a {{NLOD}} licence tag and add it to Commons:Copyright tags, but would like to know if you have any comments to this licence and/or if there are any additional processes I have to go through? - 4ing (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You can just go and create the tag. There is no special process. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've created draft license tags in English and Norwegian at User:4ing/NLOD/en and User:4ing/NLOD/no. I will try to harmonize the texts better (the Norwegian text is almost a copy/paste of the summary at [10], while the English text is based on the English fulltext version at [11]) before I move them from my user space. - 4ing (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I found a thread on nowp from 2014 discussing the NLOD license. A main concern regarding the use of NLOD material on Wikipedia was the condition "The licensee shall not use the information in a manner that appears misleading nor present the information in a distorted or incorrect manner." This condition might be more relevant for text or data than for images and figures, and I find it almost identical to the requirement in OGL v1.0 ("ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source"; this requirement has been omitted in OGL v3.0). Is it clear that this requirement is accepted under the Wikimedia Commons policy? - 4ing (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Yarmouk University Title.png

File is licensed as "CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", but I don't believe that's accurate. It may, however, be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} if the script lettering is not eligible for copyright protection. Country of origin seems to be Jordan based upon en:Yarmouk University and yu.edu.jo. Does this need to be tagged with "No permission since" or can it be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this can be marked as {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done and categories added. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed on licensing

Hi all, I would like to upload some photos which I have inherited. The photographs show buildings during construction and architectural models. I have written permission by the architect. Do I have to state the bequeather's name as author? That would force me to expose their real name even though to my knowledge I now have all the rights. If so, do I have to send an own permission to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org because then the author's name is not the same as the uploader's (my) name? Thanks in advance. --Till (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Till.niermann: Ja, den Namen des Fotografens musst Du angeben. Quelle: {{Own archive}} / Autor: Fotograf XYZ / Lizenz: {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} oder eine andere Lizenz aus der Category:License tags for transferred copyright. Damit sind alle Anforderungen erfuellt. Das dann so in die email, das Schreiben des Architekten nicht vergessen! C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Danke schön! --Till (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User contributions to the National Heritage List for England

The National Heritage List for England recently introduced a feature to its website to allow users to "enrich the list" by adding additional information and photographs. The terms for submitting photos to the list can be found here. The section dealing with licensing of the photos states:

"By submitting your Contribution (which for the avoidance of doubt includes photographs submitted by you) you grant to Historic England a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable word-wide licence together with the right to grant sub-licences, to publish and use your Contribution (or any part of it) on or in connection with the List, the Website, and on or in other Historic England websites and publications, in any media, in any context and at any time for commercial gain or otherwise.

You (or the copyright owner) remain the owner of copyright in your Contribution but in addition to clause 5.3 (see paragraph above) you agree that users of the Website may copy, modify, edit, reproduce, display, publish or otherwise make use of all or part of your Contribution on a royalty free basis.

This seems to me to be a free enough license for the content to be re-used here. If that is agreed to be the case, which license should we use? Public domain? An existing one, or should we create a custom template for photos from this source? Kelly (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to grant a license to Historic England, and a different license to users of their website, but not to anybody else. --ghouston (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Fényes painting

I found this painting (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32357038@N08/6518122305/in/photolist-aVZ5F4), and it says: (c) All rights reserved, but the painter, Adolf Fényes died in 1945. Can I upload it under the corresponding licenses? --Fmvh (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think so. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fmvh: We already have the following {{Creator:Adolf Fényes}} and Category:Paintings by Adolf Fényes. Keep'em coming! C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Florian K. Lawton paintings

File:Autumn's Glory Hunting Valley, Ohio 2007.jpg and File:Quail Hunting Louisville, Kentucky 1984.jpg were uploaded as "own work", but that is almost certainly not the case since en:Florian K. Lawton, the person who actually painted them, died in 2011. If the dates in names of each file is correct then it also seems unlikely that these can be converted to public domain per c:COM:FOP#United States or {{PD-Art}}. Finally, the 1984 image also includes a frame which I think might make it a 3D work as well. Anyway, fklfoundation.org seems to a foundation established on behalf of Lawton, and some of his paintings seem to be for sale so I don't think they'd want to have his work released under a free license. Any suggestions on what should be done here? {{Copyvio}} or {{Npd}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Files on ja.wp, GFDL only

Hi! I tried to transfer a few files (one is this one) from ja.wp to here. They are licenced GFDL, and appear (at first sight, at least!) to have been uploaded by the photographer. But CommonsUploader tells me they have no valid licence. I thought GFDL-only was valid here. Am I wrong? Can I upload that file? Do I have to do it manually? Note: they do carry some sort of licence migration notice; since I can't read Japanese, I'm not sure what that says. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses GFDL is an acceptable license. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruslik0, that's what I thought – that's why I was surprised when CommonsHelper refused it. I've now uploaded them using Url2Commons, four files in Category:Mishima Island, Yamaguchi. I'd be grateful if someone would take a look to check that I didn't mess up. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
They seem ok. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Plotted curves: Ineligible or not?

File:General Electric 1954 6SN7 mu chart.svg - traced from a 1954 copyrighted paper (and available in a myriad other versions by other corporations since 1939 with and without (c) notice).

Facts like data series or mathematical functions are not eligible for copyright protection, and standard visual representations of such facts do not constitute the sort of original expression to which copyright applies. So yes, it's really {{PD-ineligible}}. (SVG source code may, in some circumstances, be eligible for copyright protection in its own right, but that probably does not apply here.)
Yes, a scanned image of a similar nature would be acceptable too. (But we do prefer SVG, which are scalable and better for verifying, modifying and translating the information. If you are unable to provide an SVG version yourself, you can tag the upload with {{Convert to SVG}} to add it to the long list of files that someone might one day volunteer to convert.) —LX (talk, contribs) 14:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If they were perfect math curves, SVG will be fine. But the originals contain minute irregularities, which are a sign of real-life distortion and other problems. These are quite hard to trace correctly (one has to make decisions if a particular kink is real, or perhaps a scanning artifact or some other nonessential bug, and any such decision may be incorrect). Retired electrician (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use figure in a book.

Hi, I am going to use pictures from wikipedia in my book. Most of them are listed as a public domain. However, I would like to contact the user and ask for permission. Mostly, users do not provide any contact information. Is there a way to contact a user? Thanks for your help. You can contact me at (email redacted --Hedwig in Washington (mail?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.192.195 (talk • contribs)

If the images are in public domain, you do not need any permission to use them. If the images are not in public domain, they are under some sort of "free" license and can be used with an appropriate attribution. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If you still want to contact the uploaders / authors, you have to check each file description. Often the author is the uploader of the file, sometimes a name is listed under author in the file description. If the author is the uploader, you can either leave a message on his/her talk page and/or send an email. Not all uploaders have the email feature activated. If the author is not the uploader, you'll have to try to find the author by researching. You might find him/her on the web, or see where the source leads you. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

File:New York Dramatic Mirror 1889-03-30 p. 4.jpg

This file is converted (by me) from a pdf on which the proprietor of the source website claims a copyright. Is that claim valid? Thanks a lot!Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

De minimis of Copyrightable is applied or not !?

I put this earlier on "Help desk" here, some people have doubts, could we have some word on it. Since i nominated picture as Feautere Picture.

Picture is Copyrightable - Chinese rinmimbi, but shot is made in macro mode, so its around "less than 1% of all banknote", where No.1 rule might be applied for de minimis. I also tried if Google will find the result, he couldnt. Is de minimis legal here ? Picture is not croped, but macro zoomed. Could someone help here. --Mile (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to know do we must clarify what banknote is that, since De minimis is about to not to configure what/which bankonote is it !? Copy-paste : Copyrighted work X is visible, but not identifiable. --Mile (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a case of de minimis because only the copyrighted subject is shown. The whole point of de minimis is that a copyrighted non-free subject is shown to such a "minimal" extent in a surrounding that is otherwise not copyrightable that it is not considered a breach of copyright. However, if you zoom into something copyrighted in order to only depict this very subject, then it is a copyvio. To make it clear, rule No. 1 at Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines refers to something in a larger setting that is so small that one cannot identify it in the whole picture. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This isn't de minimis. The "<1% of total banknote" argument is a decent argument supporting fair use on a local project, perhaps, but that's irrelevant to Commons. ~ Rob13Talk 16:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
100% of the photo is depicting a (presumably) copyrighted work -- that is not de minimis in any way. The "identifiable" in the guideline was more meant for when the work is scaled down or blurred to the point you can't really make out the copyrighted expression any more. I suppose if a photo like this was focusing on just one or two lines, it may be OK -- but this one still has a considerable amount of expression. The "<1%" sounds more like a fair use argument, which is very different, but one which does not apply for Commons (we cannot accept any work on a "fair use" rationale). It's a shame, because that is a very nice and very educational photo. But just like a zoomed photo of a copyrighted painting, it's still a straight copy of copyrighted expression. If the copyright in the banknote has expired, or it is a U.S. banknote and therefore PD-USGov, it would be fine. If it qualifies for fair use on local projects, that should also be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Got you all. Dont worry Carl Lindberg, i got another banknote, which is more free. So we get out something of patterns. This will be deleted. --Mile (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:PUMA.png

I'm not sure that the jumping cougar is below TOO in Germany. At least we didn't have any comparable images yet in Category:Puma AG logos. De728631 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If the threshold of originality allows it (and I'll leave that to others), we should just transfer en:File:Puma AG.svg here. The uploader never claimed that, though. The uploader claims to be the author of the logo, meaning he claims to be Lutz Bakes from Nuremberg who created the logo in 1967. Since the uploader is a prolific copyright violator who speaks Spanish, that seems rather doubtful. So as for this user and their "own work" low-resolution raster copy, we don't need to jump through hoops to save "their" work. Just block and delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Deleted Leaping puma logo is not free, similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puma Logo.svg.png --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

South Africa and Afrikaans

Hi!

There was a question relating to copyright in the Afrikaans "geselshoekie" (the local village pump) There is an Afrikaans version of the Encyclopedia of Southern Africa Ensiklopedie_van_Suidelike_Afrika that exists 50 years this year. How does this affect copyright status?

Thanks! Jcwf (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

To upload it to Wikimedia, you should check its US copyright status also. Look here. URAA may apply here. Ankry (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Hollywood.png

This is a huge collage of 50 images found on Commoms. However, looking at the file's description it appears that five of the files (File:Gene Kelly in Take Me Out to the Ball Game trailer.jpg, File:Douglas 1956 still.jpg, File:JoanCrawfordByYousufKarsh.jpg, File:Humphrey Bogart by Karsh (Library and Archives Canada).jpg and File:FireOverEnglandVivienLeigh.jpg) have been deleted in various DRs since the collage was created. Is it possible to save the collage file by removing/hiding the deleted individual images, or does the whole thing have to be scrapped a new file collage created all together? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to substitute new photos in the collage for the photos that were deleted as copyright violations. You can make a new collage by downloading the original and overwriting the five deleted images with new photos from Commons that you feel are secure in their copyright status. Upload your replacement image and replace the links to the five deleted photos with links to source files for your five replacement photos. As an example, i did this a year ago at File:Classical music composers montage.JPG after one its source files was deleted. If you need help creating the replacement image, you can post a request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop clearly identifying the images in the collage you want to replace and which files on Commons you want to use as replacements. —RP88 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that information RP88. Is the file OK as is in the meantime? Also, I considered contacting the file's uploader, but they have been indefinitely blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If it is nominated for deletion just mention on the DR that you are working on creating and uploading a non-copyright infringing replacement and I'm sure you'll be given lots of leeway to create a replacement. I've added it to my watchlist and will convert any speedy delete that is added to it to a normal deletion request, so at the very least you've got a week. Also, make sure the five replacement images you choose are license compatible with the license of the current collage. Since the current collage is using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license, look for replacement images that are public domain, CC-BY (any version), or CC-BY-SA (2.0 or later). See Commons:Collages for details. —RP88 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the uploader is User:Blofeld Dr., who is not blocked (but hasn't edited in more than a year). User:Dr. Blofeld~commonswiki is an artifact from the conversion to single login for all sites (see meta:Help:Unified login for background if you're interested). You also might consider using File:Golden Age of Hollywood.png as a replacement. —RP88 (talk)
Thanks for all the additional info RP88. Just for reference though, I am not heavily invested in this image. I noticed it after en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, where it is used, showed up on my watchlist. I was actually going to DR it myself, but figured I'd ask about it here first. I will, however, post a note about the file at en:WT:ACTOR to let the members of that WikiProject know about it since they probably can find better replacement images. I will also add something to Blofeld Dr.. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@RP88: . I just realized that there are two different files with similar names because I didn't carefully read your post the first time. I just glanced at the files and assumed they were one and the same. Now, I'm not sure if both files are needed, since they both seem to be serving the same purpose. Maybe it would be acceptable to take the one with copyvios to DR? The copyvio file is being used mainly on Enlgish Wikipedia, so I can post notes on those pages and suggest replacing it with the OK version. I'm not sure, however, to deal with the one use on Greek Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2,500-year old Etruscans.jpg

I can't find evidence in the source of this image that it is free to use in any way. I may have missed something. Doug Weller (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right. This is a poster, not an open access article. Ruslik (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:TestSimonBolivar.jpg

Its description says 'own work' but the same image appears to be in other sites (https://twitter.com/elsimonbolivar). Is it a PD-art or a screenshot from a film? This is outside my field, and I cannot read Spanish. Thanks. Darklanlan (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Ellin Beltz on my suggestion that it is copyvio. It may be reuploaded, if copyright status becomes clear. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Quick response thanks! Darklanlan (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Syria

What is the meaning ot https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Syria time of publiation, taken or what? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.99.9.86 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

“ To publish is to make content available to the general public. While specific use of the term may vary among countries, it is usually applied to text, images, or other audio-visual content on any traditional medium, including paper (newspapers, magazines, catalogs, etc.). The word publication means the act of publishing, and also refers to any printed copies. ”

—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication

Too lazy to type that myself. Hope it helps. C(_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong license on File:Brilacidin-.png?

This image was quite obviously copied from here (only with colour removed) which seems to be in the public domain [12]; but the uploader then claimed to be the author and published the image under a CC license. Is this okay? Should the licensing notice on the file page be changed? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

should I try to delete a filed with a watermark?

Should I try to delete https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S_I_Nw.jpg on the basis that it has a watermark and is therefore probably copyrighted? Siuenti (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Watermarked images generally require OTRS permission, unless watermarked using the uploader username. Ankry (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia sent postcards - correct copyright for?

An editor has posted an intriguing question on the WP help-desk about the copyright status of a postcard sent to him by Wikimedia Asia [13]. The image on the front is noted to be CC-BY-SA but what about the postcard's typography, message and handwriting? Think it would be bordering on the pedantic to add a CC-BY-SA to include the address and message side – but since we make such a song and dance about free use, maybe we should on all our external communications (unless it is sent in confidence). What we have to consider to is such a personal correspondence being turned into a derived works. So, don't think the answer is that simple and I don't want to assume. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you post its image somewhere? Ruslik (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

PD USA coming from Facebook accounts

Hello just a note to notify this discussion. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

USFWS Pacific Region's Flickr images marked as CC-BY-NC

USFWS Pacific Region's Flickr images, such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwspacific/28541471203 , are marked as CC-BY-NC-2.0, despite the fact that many if not all were taken by USFWS employees. I presume the files, at lease those explicitly stated as having been taken by an FWS employee, are {{PD-USGov-FWS}}, but they'll fail license review by the FlickreviewR bot. Can I just tag them {{PD-USGov-FWS}} after upload, or should they be flagged for human review? --Rrburke (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, the best solution is just to ask them? Ankry (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A USFWS employee could do wildlife photography on his or her own time (not uncommon), then donate the images. It is common to assume that such donations are to the public domain but I am not aware of any such requirement.Dankarl (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
when the FWS employee goes to a restricted sanctuary, it implies work time. emailing the government tends not to work, maybe we should contact their social media folks for an editathon. the northeast region has PD and CC-BY i.e. https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsnortheast/30428304465/in/pool-1566786@N21/ Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The profile page mentions most of them are public domain, with a few "all rights reserved" exceptions. Seems like someone got a little confused about copyright, and marked them with creative commons NC. I think assuming PD-USGov is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Dragon-762166.jpg

Hi, this picture seem a (License laundering) but I'm not sure, this account contain only one picture and uploaded in Apr 2015, I search in google and found many websites use same picture but I don't know if they take it from pixabay or not --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The same resolution image (there are other similar images too) is found here and the exif is dated April 2015 too but as you say there are several others copies online. I suspect the Pixabay uploader is not the copyright owner, so OTRS verification would be advisable. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ex MI6 C Steele Dossier

I'd like to invite to a discussion about the copyright status of the Trump dossier by C Steele @ Commons:Deletion requests/File:2017 Trump dossier by Christopher Steele, Ex-MI6 Russia Desk Intelligence Agent.pdf. --10:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Dhkp.svg and File:DHKP.svg

Are both of these files needed? They are both svgs and they both show the same flag/logo, so I'm not sure if there's a real difference between the two. The file names are also basically the same except the latter file uses all caps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There have been (are?) tons of flags of Turkey that are duplicates. Pretty messy for some reason. I'm moving & replacing Dhkp.svg with DHKP.svg. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on this Hedwig in Washington. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Yukon Party Logo.svg

Should this be tagged with at least {{No permission}} given the fact that the file can be seen in use on the official website of the en:Yukon Party and because the user talk page of the uploader is filled with various image notifications about other files they've uploaded? Moreover, I'm not sure if simply creating an svg version of a copyrighted logo means that the original copyright is no longer in force. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

License is definitely wrong. Unsure if it is below or above canadian TOO, however. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ankry. Any suggestions on what should be done in this partcular case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Unsure what do you mean: what should be done to delete this logo, what should be done to preserve this logo or what should be done to ensure whather it is free or not?
The latter case is the most difficult one as it needs an opinion of somebody experienced in Canadian copyright cases.
Nominating it for deletion will effect in a bit random decission of a deleting admin (TOO cases are always a bit subjective).
One can also ask the party for an OTRS permission; their response, if received, may be a hint what to do further.
The logo can be stored as fair use in enwiki, if deleted here. Bur AFAIK, not in frwiki.
Ankry (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Ankry. Sorry if my post was a bit too vague, but your reply covered all bases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sushil Kumar Modi.jpg and File:Sushil Kumar Modi.JPG

The file name of "File:Sushil Kumar Modi.jpg" is almost identical to File:Sushil Kumar Modi.JPG, except for the capitalization of "JPG" in the latter. Both files show the same person, but are otherwise different in content. The "JPG" file is a crop of File:Sushil Kumar Modi 1.JPG, so I'm wondering if its file name should be changed to something to which allows the two files to be more easily differentiated from each other per COM:FR. Perhaps "File:Sushil Kumar Modi 1 cropped.JPG" or something similar? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you can do it. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ruslik0. If you feel a file rename is justified, then I can tagged it with {{Rename}}. I am not an administrator of file mover, however, so I don't think I can rename the file myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo from 1887 at Getty Images. Public domain?

I recently uploaded File:Zazel3.jpg, a photo from 1887. When I went to use it for a Did You Know on the English Wikipedia, the reviewer pointed out that the licensing may not be appropriate. Specifically, though I found it elsewhere, as best I can tell now the photo is with the Hulton Archive, owned by Getty Images. See the page here. That page includes a record for "Date created" as January 01, 1877. If we know the image is from 1877, in what contexts is it safe to assume it's in the public domain, and in what contexts is it not? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We do not know if and when it was published for the first time. A possibility would be to use {{PD-US-unpublished}}, if the conditions are met. --Ruthven (msg) 13:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Hmm. It looks like it does meet #2 there: "the death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1897". If we don't know when it was published, does it make sense to err on the side of unpublished? — Rhododendrites talk |  13:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
On that, I prefer to leave an user more experienced with this tag to answer. --Ruthven (msg) 13:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To reframe: we have a photographic work with an unknown author and unknown first publication, but we have a creation date of 1887 and likelihood it was originally published in the UK. The original photograph is now owned by Getty. If we follow the 120 year rule for unpublished works, it's in the public domain in the US. If it was first published before 1923, it's in the public domain. The big question, it seems, is whether Getty's publication on their website would count as first publication in the absence of other documentation. That seems like an unlikely slippery slope. But if that's the case it would still be in the public domain "70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication", since UK has copyright relations with the US. Does 120 years still apply regarding the assumption of the author's death? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was in the Hulton Archives, it was published. I don't think that is much of a question. If the photographer was known, it could still potentially be under copyright (if that photographer lived to at least 1947, which is getting unlikely but still possible). But, since the Getty page can't identify an author, it sure seems most likely that it is both {{PD-UK-unknown}}, and {{PD-1923}}. Getty will put a copyright notice on anything it has from the Hulton Archives (which it bought), regardless of copyright status. That archive did have some unpublished works, but those would have been taken by employees of the w:Picture Post -- earlier photographs it pretty much would have had to collect, and were almost certainly published in order to allow them to do that. And once they were offered for sale by Hulton in the first place, that may well have been publication right then anyways. I don't think it's reasonable to doubt the publication status -- just the author issue, and the UK term. But, it is the uploader's risk if Getty does sue. If the uploader is uncomfortable, I would delete, but likely not over general copyright concerns, unless an author was identified in the first 70 years after publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Getty Images is in practice collation website, not a publisher. I do not recall any case where images of interest that have been released on that site that were not previously published elsewhere in some form. Getty gets no respect from me, claiming copyright over obviously public domain material and then doing absolutely nothing to ever correct that legal error, even when notified formally, makes them as bad as any vandal or Flickrwashing account. I look forward to a time when we push them, and their deliberately misleading practices, out of business. --Fæ (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
agreed. or sending Carol M. Highsmith a dunning notice. the sanctimony is matched by the incompetence. they could set standards for licenses, but why bother, there's no money in it. i would put PD-1923 on it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't suppose anybody's ever had any luck just asking Getty about the author...? — Rhododendrites talk |  02:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
hey go for it. my experience is that artists are responsive and organizations are not, (or tend to restate the boilerplate). yrmv. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I sent Getty an email. I won't get my hopes up. I must say, this is rather more ambiguous than I'm used to. Here's another question: What reason is there to assume that Getty's is the original? I mean, if I make two copies of a photo, give one to an archive, sent the other who knows where, but the archive is purchased and licensed for profit, why would the assumption be that all versions of the photo that should be in the public domain came from the one now owned by [Getty]? Of course, I don't have any evidence to say there are other versions, but I didn't find this through Getty; I found it because it's all over the Internet, and got it myself from a Huffington Post article, seeing the age and not really worrying about tracking down more information. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

no, reason at all. that's why the archivists make a distinction between scan of glass plate (or negative) and scan of print. distribution channels have a print, the photographer or studio has the negative. both can go to the archives. or the studio could burn down. i.e. getty has PD items from Library of Congress, that they sell. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

FOP issue

Hey, is this file OK in light of FOP? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please consider this file, too. --Mhhossein talk 20:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The location depicted in the photos may be the Banco de Londres in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In particular, see this image. From information elsewhere and on Commons, Clorindo Testa was the architect. Though there is a FOP license tag for Argentina, it is not totally clear as to whether interiors are covered under FOP. --Gazebo (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Gazebo: Yes, it's located in Buenos Aires. See Category:Files from Open Foto Buenos Aires 2016. Then we need to know if interiors are covered under FOP according to the Argentina copyright law. --Mhhossein talk 09:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since there is no actual freedom of panorama provision in Argentine law but it is considered uncontroversial to depict buildings, I don't see where a restriction should occur that limits these depictions to the exterior of any building. So I don't think that images of interiors are problematic. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Normally any exterior / interior distinction would have to be spelled out in the law -- otherwise a photo from the inside is still just a photo of the building. It sounds like Argentina's status is more based on some legal scholar opinions, and lack of any contradicting court cases, so there would be nothing to base an inside/outside distinction on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks every body. --Mhhossein talk 06:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Stock certificates

Back in the day, ownership of a share of a corporation's stock was evidenced by an actual certificate of ownership. If the stock was publicly-owned, then those certificates were made available to anyone who purchased them. Are scans of these shares subject to copyright restrictions? I have in mind the one that is shown here -- http://scripophily.net/aufireinnewy.html . This certificate was issued in 1969; the entire series from which it was issued was printed no earlier than 1968. The certificate bears no copyright notice. The company itself ceased to exist by the mid 1980s. Is this image uploadable to Commons? (If so, I intend to redact the name of the owner before uploading). Thanks in advance for any guidance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was first published in the US, and it was published if an arbitrary person could hand over money and get a copy, prior to 1978 (in this case, we can probably say 1989, though there's some more technical rules there) without a copyright notice, then it's public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks for the response. However, I fear that I may have wasted your time. After posting my question, I took another look at the image and found that there is some very small writing in the lower-left corner of the image. It's so small that I can't read it and it becomes absolutely unreadable after "zooming in". But, it looks like it might be a copyright notice. So, I'm going to err on the side of caution and not upload it here (instead, I'll see if I can fashion a fair-use argument before adding it to an article). Thanks again for the response and my apologies for not catching the possible notice before posting here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: From looking at images of other old stock certificates, of the same design, it strongly appears that the small text in the bottom center, under the design, is a copyright notice from the United States Banknote Company. 09:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Content of local MLITT of Japan web sites.

Hello, a template exists showing the license applicable for the reproduction of the content of the National Land Image Information of Japan, a web site of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan (MLITTJ). Some other sites run by local entities of the MLITTJ display their own copyright notice. This is the case of the Kanto Regional Development Bureau. Their notice states that the content of the site can be freely used (reproduction, transformation, translation) even for a commercial purpose. How can I "translate / transfer" their notice on Commons ? Should I create a new license template ? --ContributorQ (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've only checked the notice page. The content seems to be under the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 1.0) (
政府標準利用規約（第1.0版）
). GJSTU-2.0 is compatible with cc-by-4.0, but GJSTU-1.0 is not accepted on Commons. See Template:GJSTU1 and Commons:井戸端/過去ログ14 (Village pump in Japanese). However, they may change terms if we contact them. Darklanlan (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Darklanlan: thanks for your reply. Their copyright notice is pretty confusing. In the header of section #2, it is written "自由に利用できます。" and "商用利用も可能です。". Then in section #2-5）イ, the notice states "本利用ルールは、政府標準利用規約（第1.0版）に準拠しています。" which means that the notice itself has been established in conformity with the government standard Terms of Use 1.0. Is this correct ?
Well it would be indeed clearer to contact them and ask whether they allow us to use the content of their site on Commons as the National Land Image Information of Japan does. I am not sure whether I can make such a move myself, I guess it would be better to have a kind of WMF credential to do this. --ContributorQ (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't join the discussion, so I carefully read it again. According to Commons:井戸端/過去ログ11#日本の省庁が公開しているコンテンツのコモンズでの利用について, GJSTU-1.0 prohibits following two usages:
法令、条例又は公序良俗に反する利用
(Usage that violates laws and ordinances, regulations, or public policy) and
国家・国民の安全に脅威を与える利用
(Usage that represents a threat to the safety of the state and/or its citizens). (Also, it doesn't mention the CC license.) Because of this, some users claimed it was not compatible with CC-BY license and we couldn't accept it. But, in another discussion (Commons:井戸端/過去ログ14), User:Yasu says it cannot be the reason for refusing. I agree with him, and this tagging would be correct. GJSTU-2.0 is better than GJSTU1, but GJSTU1 is also OK, I think. Darklanlan (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your report about these discussions. Some users indeed oppose the use of the GJSTU1 license with the arguments you mention. A failed june 2016 deletion request of the template is a good summary of the debat. Strangely, the template displays this message: "...But the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Ver.1.0) is not the free license. Because don't use this template.". Now I am not sure that GJSTU1 is OK. I think the argument: "Usage that violates laws and ordinances, regulations, or public policy", should be considered because it is a restriction we are unable to precisely frame, it is far too vague. There may be (or there might be) a japanese law article which may (might in the future) be invoked against the use on Commons. I now think that the copyright policy of the Nikkō bureau, by example, is not compatible with the Commons' usages because of its subordination to this clause which introduces some vagueness.
Ok, thanks for your help, I will try to obtain a clarification from the MLITTJ Nikkō bureau and will report here the result. Have a good week-end. --ContributorQ (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This discussion helped me to understand the copyright tag. I'm looking forward to hear your good news. Thanks! Darklanlan (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I send two mails to the Nikkō MLIT bureau. I had to insist because they first just answered me to check their copyright page. I finally obtained a clear answer about the compatibility of their web site's content with the GJSTU-2.0. Their copyright notice has been updated and now refers to the GJSTU-2.0 and the CC-BY-4.0. license (sections 2.7-イ and 2.7-ウ). --ContributorQ (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You have done a good job! I expected it would take a few weeks or months. But now we can use their content under GJSTU-2.0 without any concern. Darklanlan (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Original = Public domain Digital = CC BY-NC 2.5 CA

  1. Is a digital copy of a photograph under CC BY-NC 2.5 CA details allowed if the original work is in the public domain in Canada.
  2. Is the original even considered in the Public Domain if it was published in Canada in 1946? -Janweh64 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Reproductions of old 2D works does not give new copyright, and mere digitalization of old photos is not a creativity work. This should be confirmed if it applies to Canada (it effectively appliy to the United States); if confirmed, the copyright notice (the CC-BY-NC license) is just invalid.
  2. Photos created in Canada prior to 1949 are in the Public domain.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I should have been more specific with the second question. Can I upload a picture to commons simply based on the fact that it was taken in 1946 in Canada and therefore is consider Public Domain in Canada? (i.e. Is it in the considered public domain in US?) Janweh64 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep (if you have your own copy of the photo). --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you elaborate (briefly) on how having your own copy of the photo makes it acceptable for upload? Isn't an image an image? How does retention of the physical object affect whether or not it is acceptable to upload it to Commons? I am very curious. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:African Union Flag.jpg

Just wondering about the copyright status of this file. I don't doubt that the photo was taken by the uploader, but I am wondering if the flag being shown can be considered to be free from copyright protection. en:File:African Union flag.svg was uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. It is, of course, entirely possible that this is in error and the flag imagery is free from copyright protection. The question is how to verify such a thing since the official website of the en:African Union and this subpage about the organization's symbols seem to be under the copyright of "The African Union Commission". I guess it could be argued that each individual element of the flag is simple enough to be PD, but I'm not sure if that can be extended to the combination of all the elements together as a single logo. Anyway, if the flag imagery in this photo is not subject to copyright protection, then it seems Wikipedia file could be converted to PD for the same reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that based on en:Flag of the African Union the flag is under copyright of Yadesa Bojia - its designer (unless the copyright was transferred to the Union). Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Are logos for FOSS software also free?

So there are many en:free and open-source software which have logos on their websites. I understand that sometimes logos are drawn by others and sometimes the website itself might not have an explicit free license. If the logo is included as part of the software repository, which includes a license compatible with Commons, is it safe to consider the logo being covered by virtue of inclusion with the free software? For example, en:CoffeeScript's logo is uploaded locally on enwiki as fair use for whatever reason, despite the software being licensed MIT and the logo being included in its software repository. So far I've uploaded two logos, but for both of them their websites clearly indicated their licenses, so I want to make sure before I upload these cases. Opencooper (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the sense that the creative artistic component of a software programming package in terms of its logo can be considered de-facto freely licensed just because the software itself is so licensed-- a book by Shakespeare may be in the public domain, but if someone designs a new cover for A Midsummer Night's Dream, that cover still remains copyrighted. However, in looking at the logo for Coffee itself, though I can see that it currently exists on Wikipedia under a fair use claim, I am not convinced that the logo meets the threshold of originality necessary to qualify for copyright protection in the first place. If you consider the list of examples at Commons:Threshold of originality and the Best Western logo discussed here I do not see the Coffee logo falling in a different class of artistic creative work. Unless there has been additional discussion of the subject elsewhere, I would suggest moving the Coffee logo to Commons, giving it a {{PD-textlogo}} tag, and calling it done. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. KDS4444 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's considered MIT licensed because it is in a collection of files that (in this case) don't have individual licenses, but have one LICENSE file saying "this software and associated documentation files" are MIT licensed. If that book by Shakespeare has an explicit license saying that "this book" is placed by the copyright holder in the public domain, then there's a reasonable assumption that includes the cover. If a logo for a free software program is included in the repository without an explicit license alongside an explicit LICENSE or README file giving a license for the whole, we can generally assume that does in fact apply to the whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Background elements in File:Caroline-Winterer-historian-in-2017.jpg

In considering File:Caroline-Winterer-historian-in-2017.jpg, the subject of the photo is Ms. Winterer, but there are also such elements as an earring worn by the subject and some notices in the background, including a small notice to the right of Ms. Winterer. In the event that these elements are copyrighted, would it be possible to treat them as a case of de minimis or incidental to the photo as a whole? --Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, de minimis applies. The photograph is based on Caroline Winterer and not the object beside her. Thus, I don't see any copyright issue. Wikicology (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright view on multipage files

Multipage file example

Are files with more than one page treated as a whole work or every page is considered separately? Here's example: File:Dowód sprzedaży biletu okresowego MPK.pdf. In this case we have scan of two sides of the machine-printed ticket. --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither; copyright works can be printed many to a page, or they can consist of large volumes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: So we can assume this file provided as an example is OK, right? --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know; seems like a rather complex question, and I neither speak Polish nor are familiar with the details of Polish copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I understand. That's why I'm posting this, because it's a complex case. I wonder where can I fetch more feedback on it. We need some Polish Commons users here. --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Could someone else comment on it? This could be a part of an approach to create a guideline how to deal with multipage files from the copyright and COM:TOO point. Thanks! --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? This is a serious topic. How should we deal with multipage files? Are they treated as a separate things or like one? --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You're asking the wrong question. Whether a file has multiple pages has little to do with its copyright status.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Assume TWO files. Assume recto is a derivative of a protected ticket, painting, whatever and verso is clearly public domain. One has to be deleted, the other one can stay on Commons. As long as there is no ©-dependency between the files, there's no problem. Whether keeping the stand alone file makes sense or not is a scope question. Now assume a two-page PDF created using both files. This pdf can't stay on Commons, because parts of the file aren't free.
Concerning your example: Yes it's ok IMHO. The CoA/logo upper left should be PD according to 1994 Polish copyright law, art. 4 #2. The rest is text only. @Piotrus: Your view regarding the file(s)? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Weell. Ok, here are my thoughts: there is noting copyrighted on page (see File:POL Kraków COA.svg). Second page has logo of the Krakowska Karta Miejska (city's monthly ticket), which I think safely passes our policies on logo (simple design, below originality threshold required for copyright). I think all the public domain elements are properly identified and explained in the pd templates on the page, so I think the image is PD. If the question was about something else, I am not sure what that something else is :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Assume we have one file, one page, with multiple images on it, like File:Civilization 1 leaders.jpg or a photo with a prominent poster in it. Same problems, and in either case, we shouldn't delete the file if what's left after editing out any copyright offending material is still useful. Whereas many books on Commons are one unified copyright work, no different from any painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, Hedwig in Washington, and Piotrus: Guys, many thanks for explaining this case! Prosfilaes, Hedwig, let me rewrite my question – I meant:

We have a ONE file with TWO (or more) pages and there's a ©-dependency between them. Every page is under the COM:TOO but combined together like in the example above they become more complicated and above COM:TOO. Possible examples include: ebooks, tickets, publications, etc.

Question: should we treat this file as a one unified work OR treat its pages as a separate things?

The first situation could have sense because we could just split pages of this file into many separate files, so I assume if we have a DR on such files, we should judge every page separately like Piotrus did.

--Rezonansowy (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pages should be judged separately, IMHO. If needed we could blank a copyrighted part of the page, ex. a picture. But again, I don't see any problem here. A collection of public domain elements cannot become copyrighted because there are too many PD elements. It doesn't work that way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a collection of PD works, like a short story or poetry anthology, does have a copyright independent of the works in it. You can copy the poems in 100 Best-Loved Poems, but not the anthology as a whole.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately, the law is not going to care much about pages or files. If we have a series of files Harry_Potter_And_The_Philosophers_Stone-xxxxx.png, each of which have one word in them: "Mr.", "and", "Mrs.", "Dursley", and so on and so forth, a court is going to stomp down on that. We might get away with posting a copyrighted anthology of public domain works, but only if any identity as an integral anthology disappears. I don't think there's any way to store both sides of a ticket or publication and have a court not consider it as storing one integral work, unless it was honestly splittable, like the Mona Lisa on one side and The Dancer on the other, and generally sticking two honestly splittable works on two sides of one sheet wouldn't make them one copyright work.
When you're talking about two pages versus one, you're cutting lines that copyright law was simply not designed to cut. There's never going to be a clear point where posting two things separately is going to be clearly PD and posting them together is going to be clearly copyrighted.
As long as we're hosting both sides of that ticket, we're going to have to process it as a whole. I don't have any specific problems with Piotrus's analysis, though I'd need translations to specifically endorse it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any problem for Commons with anything else but collections of public domain elements, whatever they may be. We have to evaluate every case separately. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

Can you please check images (which I have uploaded) on the copyright violation? (I want to be sure that I can upload more similar images.)

These images contain only lists of letters and phonemes.

List of picturesː 1, 2, 3. - صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They seem ok, but the general layout of a page may be copyrightable in some cases. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it?

I mentioned this thread on the main Village Pump page, but in retrospect should probably have mentioned it here. Here is a link to the discussion on Commons: [14]. In brief, if a person takes a public domain image and modifies it by adding annotation numbers/ arrows and adjusting the color tones, etc., does that person then get to claim authorship of the modified image as a derivative work? To keep the conversations in one place, please respond either at the Village Pump or, ideally, on the talk page of one of the participants here rather than start another thread here at the copyright section of Commons. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Derivative work cannot attract any new copyright if the original work has fallen into the public domain. Wikicology (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wikicology: that sounds wrong, as anything like a general principle. A photo of a PD sculpture is a derivative work, but is copyrightable in its own right. (I will copy your & my remarks to the linked talk page where they were requested.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh....Really? Well, maybe I'm wrong but are you familiar with the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute? I think Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case would also be relevant here. Wikicology (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither case has anything to do with derivative works. They're about mere uncreative copies. Jmabel is right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Because "derivative work" was not mentioned there? "Photograph of a photography" is not a derivative work for example? Wikicology (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No. Title 17, section 1, § 101 of US copyright law says "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." § 103 says "Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
That is, a derivative work is copyrightable, but it doesn't affect the copyright of what was already there. If it doesn't "represent an original work of authorship", as the noncreative copies in Corel didn't, it's not a derivative work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very familiar with COM:DW and what the US law says about it. Let me tell you why the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute applies to this particular situation. In 2009, User:Coetzee uploaded over 3000 high-resolution images from the British National Portrait Gallery's database to Wikimedia Commons. The original images reproduced by National Portrait Gallery had falling into the public domain and Coetzee believed that NPG cannot claim infringement of their own copyright simply by modifying the images. In a letter to Coetzee, NPG claim that while the painted portraits may be old (and have thus fallen into the public domain), the high-quality photographic reproductions are recent works, and qualify as copyrighted works due to the amount of work it took to digitize and restore them. The verdict from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case implies that "Reproductions of works that have fallen into the public domain cannot attract any new copyright in the United States" which I think was the reason why Coetzee was not sued by NPG. Copyright issue is a tricky thing, we may not be able to give perfect explanation on execeptional case since most people here are not legal practitioners. Even if we are, not everyone commenting here as handle cases like this in court. Wikicology (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Er, wha? I quoted the exact section of US law that says that derivative works are copyrightable. Claiming to be very familiar is not a response.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I said "Derivative work cannot attract any new copyright if the original work has fallen into the public domain." This does not mean that Derivative work is not copyrightable in its own right but Its copyright depends on weather the original work is in public domain or not. If the original work is not in public domain, the DW is copyrightable because it's protected by the copyright of the original work. However, if the original work is in public domain, the DW from it will not be copyrightable unless it is significantly different from the original work from which it was produced. Wikicology (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative works, as under the definition used by US law, always have their own copyright, provided the underlying work was used lawfully. A work that is not "an original work of authorship" is not copyrightable, though any copyright on the parts used from previous copyrighted works still exists. The standard for what is a copyright is not "significantly different"; it's "an original work of authorship", or basically the same as non-derivative works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that "copyrightable" in this context means "eligible for copyright" and the eligibility of DW for copyright depends on weather the DW display some originality of its own or created from a non-free (copyrighted) work. If it's created from a public domain work in such a way that the DW is not original on it's own, it cannot attract any new copyright. For a DW to be protected by copyright; 1. It must display some originality of its own 2. It must be created from a non-free (copyrighted work). In this case, the DW would be protected by the copyright of the original work that is copyrighted. Wikicology (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
[Redacted] Thanks you for honoring my request, Jmabel. Wikicology (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how much of the above is aimed at my question— Wikicology, I think you are on the wrong path here. A derivative work's copyright does not depend on whether or not the underlying work is in the public domain, because if it has been classified as a derivative work, it already has its own copyright. The cart is coming before the horse. The eligibility of a work for copyright protection, if based on a public domain work, is determined by whether or not that work can be called "derivative"— if so, then it is entitled to its own copyright; if not, then it is called a copy of the public domain work and is itself in the public domain. Of those things I am certain. My question had to do with whether or not the kinds of changes performed on this particular public domain work entitled the person who modified that work to have that work classified as "derivative" and therefore to call themselves the author of that work. There appear to be no clear guidelines anywhere on Commons about the ins and outs of claims to authorship of a public domain file, and it is the vagaries of this situation which brought me to ask my question. But we can all just go ahead and call this thread closed, if we like— I didn't want to have this discussion here in the first place, really, I wanted to keep it consolidated elsewhere (though if anyone DOES know of a page on Commons that talks about identifying and claiming authorship in detail, I would love to know where it is! Thanks!). KDS4444 (talk)

You seemed to be confusing yourself, partly because you never bother to read more than my earliest comment which I had clarified in my response to User:Prosfilaes. I have stated the condition under which a derivative work would be protected by copyright. My comments above is not about what constitute a derivative work or when a work should be called a derivative work. You asked "If a person takes a public domain image and modifies it by adding annotation numbers/ arrows and adjusting the color tones, etc., does that person then get to claim authorship of the modified image as a derivative work?" The answer is yes if it display some originality of its own. Wikicology (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

I've found one of my photos under wiki commons (someone downloaded it from FB and put it up under their user name). How do I get it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.25.211.120 (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154315264300003&set=a.15465390002.8705.575745002&type=3&theater Push Push 1986

Here's the illegal one: File:PushPush1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.25.211.120 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The Facebook page isn't available to me, but I DRed this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PushPush1.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, for future reference, if you're willing to go through the rigmarole, you can send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation asserting your copyright over an infringing image. clpo13(talk) 23:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(Though that is a pain in the arse and we are usually more than willing to accommodate requests for removal of copyrighted images under the COM:Precautionary principle.) KDS4444 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have made the album public so you can see the photo :) I will take it back to friends tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 73.25.211.120 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cevap ver.jpg

Hi, I restored these files, but what's the correct license? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't stated why the file was restored. You said "it is the usual practice to do this, few days ago. Wikicology (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The author of the poster died in 1946, so presumably it's PD-old-70 now? (It would not have been when it was deleted.) If it's before 1923, which it may be, then it'd be PD-1923, otherwise Not-PD-US-URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I changed the license on File:Tyzapisalsa.jpg to {{PD-Scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1946}}. —RP88 (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I am asking because File:Cevap ver.jpg has a different license: {{PD-Ukraine}}. Yann (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading the old DR, it sounds like PD-Ukraine was a way of trying to keep it before, even though it was a Russian author and first published in Russia. That may have validity in some cases if you believe that anything published in the Soviet Union was simultaneously published in all of the eventual successor countries, meaning the country of origin is the one among those with the shortest term. Ukraine's move to 70pma was not retroactive I guess while Russia's eventually was. But... that reasoning rubs some people the wrong way, and the Ukraine didn't become part of the USSR until 1922 anyways so this was not first published there. We don't need to get cute like that anymore, anyways -- just make it PD-old-70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Carl, I fixed it. Yann (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recording of book introduction

I would like to upload an original recording of the Introduction by Pierce to the book "Principles of Public Health", by Thos. D. Tuttle. The book was published in 1910, the Introduction by Pierce is undated. Is it public domain, or not? What should I do for the upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSAMPA (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends on when Mr. Pierce died. Ruslik (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/53974/53974-h/53974-h.htm shows the book in question, and it's American, so when Pierce died is irrelevant. I don't see any particular value to the Introduction by Pierce; I'd go so far as to say that out of the context of the rest of the book, it's out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It may become in scope if used in eg. enwikisource, however. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It would only get used on en.wikisource if we had a text copy, and a copy of the Introduction alone would be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It's actually for an article about a dialect. The text itself is completely irrelevant. I just need to know how to do the attribution for it. XSAMPA (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos of bottles of liquor

My understanding is that labeling of product packaging in photos are often still under copyright protection per COM:PACKAGING and it's not assumed that purchasing a product itself means that there's been a transfer of any copyright related to its packaging. So, I am wondering about photos such as File:Kaiser-Kuemmel J A Gilka 002.jpg and File:Echter Leipziger Allasch Vorderseite.JPG. The photos themselves for sure can be licensed as "own work" by the photographer, and the bottles themselves are ineligible for copyright protection since they are generic shapes, but I'm not sure about the labels. I don't think de-minimis can be argued here, but I'm also not sure if the labels would be are considered to be still copyrighted or would be considered to be old enough by now to be in the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends on weather the packaging, and product designs contain copyrightable features. I would like to cite Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. case in which the court ruled that "copyright cannot be claimed in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter.". Yes, there are copyright elements in the images provided above but the photographs were based on the bottle as a whole, and not on the labels. Thus, I don't see any copyright issue. Wikicology (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The Leipziger Allasch Vorderseite one probably has no element still in copyright (pretty sure their logo is in the public domain by now, it's been nearly a century). The Gilka one is trickier, but I think the only thing copyrightable there is the penguin, which is a pretty tiny portion of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: (regarding Gilka) The issue for 'de minimis' is not how much of the image is taken up by the copyrighted material, but more if the copyrighted material was intentionally included as part of the subject of the photograph. Since the image seems to deliberately be of the particular brand, not the utilitarian bottle itself (the description makes that rather clear) DM really does not apply. The penguin seems to have been deliberately included in the photgraph. - Reventtalk 12:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If that is really considered an issue, I'd suggest a Gaussian blur over the penguin, rather than outright deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who responded so far. I feel the same as Revent about the penguin imagery, at least based upon how the file is being used. The photo doesn't seem to have been taken to show any generic bottle of liquer, but rather to be used to identify this particular brand of liquer. So, showing the label is an important part of that identification. The question then is whether the imagery on the label is eligible for copyright protection. It seems too complex and original to be {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-textlogo}}, so that leaves its age. If it's old enough to be no longer eligible for copyright protection or has lapsed out of copyright, then the complexity/originality no longer matter, right? If that, however, cannot be clearly determined, then maybe Jmabel's suggestion is worth a try. I have seen it done before with File:PixelatedHuyFongSriracha.jpg, so it probably can be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I've done it a lot when photographing art galleries, where the space presents no issue, but the individual works of art would. E.g. what I did to the artworks in File:Georgetown Rainier malt house interior 01 - blurred.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits ruled that a photo of the bottle which is not focusing on the label in particular is not a derivative work, regardless if the label is copyrightable or not. So, I don't think these photos are an issue. Photos which are focusing on a copyrightable label (or a crop that does), would be. This is often termed "incidental" in some copyright laws or court rulings -- it's a photo of a wider subject containing a copyrightable object which was inherently (and unavoidably) there. As always, there are probably edge cases if the photo is intending to trade off the expression in the label in some way, and it may differ by country. But overall, most photos like this can be OK. For many other forms of COM:PACKAGING, it gets harder because the copyrightable packaging is often the entire surface. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: It comes down to if we think the image is overly focused on the label... what makes me question this is that the uploader specifically discussed the penguin. It brings it into the realm of being arguable, imo, but it's indeed a borderline case. - Reventtalk 11:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists of coordinates within KML files

Since the enabling of tabular/map data, it is now theoretically possible to convert KML files to GeoJSON and upload to Data:some-file-name.map. See Data:Sandbox/Evad37/St Georges Terrace.map for example, which I made in the same way I would make KML file for Wikipedia, but then converted it to GeoJSON and uploaded it here. However, Wikimedia-based KML files are actually stored as text in wiki subpages, and thus licenced as CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL. And only CC0/public domain data is allowed for Data: namespace files. Meaning that on first glance, it isn't possible to convert files to GeoJSON and upload them, unless the original author agrees to licence them as CC0. However, KML files are really just a list of coordinates and some XML tags, and according to User:Fredddie on Wikipedia, "Regarding the licenses, I think we're OK. I don't believe lists of numbers (which what KML files essentially are) are necessarily copyrightable." (w:WT:USRD#Maplinks.2FJSON_.28possible_replacement_for_KML.29)

An example KML file, from w:Template:Attached KML/St Georges Terrace (which I also made), is: 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <kml xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2" xmlns:gx="http://www.google.com/kml/ext/2.2" xmlns:kml="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> <Document> <name>St Georges Terrace.kml</name> <Style id="style"> <LineStyle> <color>ff0000ff</color> <width>5</width> </LineStyle> <PolyStyle> <fill>0</fill> </PolyStyle> </Style> <StyleMap id="stylemap_id17"> <Pair> <key>normal</key> <styleUrl>#style</styleUrl> </Pair> <Pair> <key>highlight</key> <styleUrl>#style0</styleUrl> </Pair> </StyleMap> <Style id="style0"> <LineStyle> <color>ff0000ff</color> <width>5</width> </LineStyle> <PolyStyle> <fill>0</fill> </PolyStyle> </Style> <Placemark> <name>St Georges Terrace</name> <styleUrl>#stylemap_id17</styleUrl> <LineString> <tessellate>1</tessellate> <coordinates> 115.8652152382319,-31.95757727904666,0 115.8599030990623,-31.95581158108592,0 115.8532167437425,-31.95363880259318,0 115.8494484168494,-31.95242128016421,0 115.8493734515245,-31.95240021631571,0 115.8493217434882,-31.95238677759241,0 115.8492717253356,-31.95237845175701,0 115.8492100112155,-31.95237053127706,0 115.8491518446366,-31.95236770497429,0 115.8491035664913,-31.95236924315256,0 115.8490642577429,-31.95237183215694,0 115.8490426534675,-31.95237566593213,0 </coordinates> </LineString> </Placemark> </Document> </kml>

So, what do users here think? Are these lists of coordinates ineligible for (U.S.) copyright? Could a U.S.-based user take such coordinate lists from KML files (published/hosted in the U.S.), create a GeoJSON files from them, and upload to Data: pages as CC0/public domain? - Evad37 [talk] 02:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I am thinking that copyright is not possible: information cannot be copyrighted, only the form in which that information is presented. You can hold a copyright to a book, and to the words in the book, but not to the way words get put together; I would also ask this: does the list of coordinates constitute a new, creative, original portion of your personality? If there is genuine creativity and novelty in them, then copyright probably holds; if not, then data are just data. At least, this is my interpretation. KDS4444 (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's clearly wrong that lists of numbers aren't copyrightable, given that that's the only thing a computer can store. I think there's a good argument in many cases for PD-ineligible, but I think it's clear that "the best trip across the US" is copyrightable and I think that a court would entertain the idea that a series of points showing a trail that is not be precisely demarked is copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I agree that there are/could be KML files which would be copyrightable. The cases that I'm interested in (and would be applicable for the vast majority of existing KML files on Wikipedia) is when the coordinates correspond to a single feature that physically exists in real life, and is already marked or signposted in real life (e.g. w:Interstate 696) – such that the coordinates just follow that feature from end to end, with no creativity as to where the path is plotted. - Evad37 [talk] 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Maps were the first thing that were protected under US law, even though by modern standards they have a pretty weak copyright. I can't say I'm comfortable with it; I'd much prefer to see a linkage with OpenStreetMap or at least not leaving them as is. But you're probably fine as long as you stick to clearly defined geographical features like Interstates and political boundaries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The points themselves would not be copyrightable, but the selection and arrangement of them certainly can be, and KML files can certainly contain that selection and arrangement. If it's just one point, then most likely not, and like you say, where the selection was already predetermined (like a numbered route) then obviously the selection would not be creative either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Imgur filenames

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Imgur filenames
-- ; for page in `seq 0 5000 80000`; do mysql -h commonswiki.labsdb commonswiki_p > imgur_names-$page.html <<< '
/* Imgur file names
 * 5 or 7 character BASE62 name and thumb size [sbtmlh] (optional)
 * and lower case extension of jpg, png, gif, + "gifv": mp4, webm
 * https://api.imgur.com/models/image
 */
SELECT STRAIGHT_JOIN CONCAT("<div><a href=http://imgur.com/", SUBSTRING_INDEX(img_name,".",1), ">",
  "<img onload=if(this.width==161&&this.height==81){n=this.parentNode.parentNode;n.parentNode.removeChild(n);}",
  "else{n=this.parentNode.nextSibling.firstChild;n.src=n.title;} ",
  "src=http://i.imgur.com/", REPLACE(img_name,".","b."), " style=max-width:90vw >",
  "</a><a href=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:",img_name,">",
  "<img alt=", img_name, " title=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/",
  IF(img_width <= 120, "", "thumb/"),
  SUBSTR(MD5(img_name),1,1),"/",SUBSTR(MD5(img_name),1,2),"/",
  IF(img_width <= 120, img_name, CONCAT(img_name, "/120px-",img_name)), ">",
  "</a> by [[User:", img_user_text, "]] (", user_editcount, ")</div>") AS "== Possible imgur =="
FROM image
JOIN user ON user_id=img_user
WHERE img_name REGEXP "^[A-Za-z0-9]{7}[.](jpg|png|gif|mp4|webm)$"
AND img_timestamp >= "20130118" /* https://blog.imgur.com/2013/01/18/more-characters-in-filenames/ */
AND img_media_type IN ("BITMAP", "VIDEO")
AND user_editcount < 25
AND DATEDIFF(img_timestamp, IFNULL(user_registration, img_timestamp)) < 7
LIMIT 5000 OFFSET '$page; done
Files uploaded by established accounts

After stumbling across File:Caindo para o inferno 2.gif, I wondered what else from imgur was here. The above 65 files is the result of a scan 70,000 files. It likely it is only half since I didn't de-capitalize file names. File:1K7onX6.png is probably public domain. Dispenser (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to create reports like User:OgreBot/Notable uploads and also suggest uploaders to use comprehensible names. Google Images search to detect copyrights violations is also looks very reasonable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I deleted most of them as copyvios. It would be useful to create a similar list with files sourced from Facebook/Tweeter/Google/Instagram/etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Facebook/Instagram are blocked by Title Blacklist. And block to imgur with that, use ([A-Za-z0-9]{5}|[A-Za-z0-9]{7})[sbtmlh]?[.](jpg|png|gif|gifv|mp4|webm). There's 99.8% chance that its just an 8.3 file name, which might be not be a bad thing... —Dispenser (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
So either the block doesn't fully work, or may be they are from before it was in place, because I regularly find copyvios with such sources. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see any trapping of likely copyvios be more sophisticated than the title blacklist, so I encourage passive reports, or examination of EXIF data or other patterns. As the most active batch uploader on this project, it's a pain in the backside to keep running into slightly arbitrary title blacklist filters. For the most part I just let the files affected get skipped, as it would soak up too much of my time to build-in rename traps or raise Phab tickets, and then spend time having a debate about ever complex regex. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I screwed up the newbie check and User:Katangais photo was deleted. I've fixed the query and listed the non-newbie images separately. —Dispenser (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It's all good, but it would be even better if you guys could see to it the mistake is rectified by restoring my photo. Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Added lowercase initial —Dispenser (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Added more by "sleeper accounts". If you've been pinged, you need to provide verification of copyright. —Dispenser (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain an edit like that isn't going to result in any notifications, since it fails the third point under mw:Help:Notifications/Notifications types#Mentions. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX: Did it work? Thanks for point to the documentation. Dispenser (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I got the ping. Not sure about the others. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No known restrictions

I drafted a page which I think reflects Commons consensus.

I would appreciate any comments which anyone has.

So far as I know, this issue is not addressed elsewhere. If this has been discussed somewhere else, then please post a note on the talk page so that any forked discussion can be merged.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure you addressed one of the main issues. The Library of Congress (at least) uses the "no known restrictions" language since it doesn't want to give binding legal advice that something is absolutely free of copyright restrictions (and then perhaps get sued if that advice was followed by a third party, but turned out to be wrong). That's exactly why most image pages on the Library of Congress website say "Rights assessment is your responsibility". A large amount of stuff where there's no real question about public domain status in the United States (including the the famous Currier and Ives print of Lincoln's assassination) has "No known restrictions on publication" language on the Library of Congress website for this reason... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The phrase comes from the Library of Congress. It is the exact same thing we mean when we say "public domain". It is not ambiguous at all; rather it is a more-accurate description of the situation as 1) the term "public domain" in general use can mean with respect to other types of intellectual property like trademark, whereas we use it just for copyright, and 2) it's always possible that courts can rule in unexpected ways, which can create rights which may not have existed previously (Disney vs. Twin Books, etc.). The question is not whether the phrase itself is OK or not -- it is, just like "public domain" -- but rather how much do we trust the source making the claim, and on what material. For stuff from the Library of Congress or Flickr, we generally trust them just fine, at least as far as works from the institution's country in that country. If the Library of Congress has a foreign work, we should look more carefully at that work's status in the country of origin -- we don't blindly accept the LoC status in that case. For U.S. works, we generally do. It is always best to find the more precise reason something became public domain, and use a specific tag. For someone who puts something up on a blog, and claims "no known copyright restrictions" (or "public domain"), we probably would not trust that determination without further information which demonstrates it conforms to a more specific tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I would be happy for this to be an essay, but contributors need to review the specific NKCR template and the phrasing each source/archive provides. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
the "no known restrictions" is a typical archivist practice, where they will say what they know and no more. they are not in the business of giving guarantees to the researcher. flickr has incorporated this option. in the US you do a copyright search, and a null result is indicative of PD, but other facts, and other consensus may emerge. "no known copyright" is a set of low risk orphans, where you are trying to prove a negative. for example the Iwo Jima photograph, which is held to be "PD-no renewal", everywhere else but commons. [15]. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Music Copyright?

I uploaded the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Song_of_Five_Races_under_One_Union_sheet_music.png a little while ago, only to find that I was notified of a possible copyright infringement/unidentified source. The page has since been fixed with the help of a kind Wikicommons user, but I was asked to get a second opinion. The file, as you can tell, is sheet music. I transferred a much older version of the sheet music (I don't know quite how old) onto Musescore, and that is what you see in the image. Both composer and lyricist died before 1945 (1929 and 1944 respectively) so both copyrights would have expired in China (the country of origin) and the United States before 2000, and therefore be in the Public Domain (in addition, the original music and lyrics were created in 1912). Should the copyright tags on the file stay how they are, or are other changes necessary? Thank you! Zhonghua88 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Cricket Hong Kong .png

I'm fairly sure that this file was not created by the uploader. The question is whether it should be tagged with {{Logo}} or converted to PD. The file belongs to but is basically text and a similar flower imagery to that used on File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg. If the flower imagery is not subject to copyright, then I believe the logo might be acceptable as {{PD-textlogo}}, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

GOL TV logos

en:File:GolTV logo.png, en:File:GOLTV Two.png and en:File:GolTV Canada.svg are logos for en:GOL TV which have been uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. The design of these logos, however, seems like it might be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} per COM:TOO#Canada. Would it be OK to tag these for a move to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Flag of Ukraine.jpg

Hello, I am not sure about copyright status of this image. I do not want to directly nominate it for deletion because I am not sure in this case so I'd like to ask more experienced users first. I know that there is never 100% guarantee. It should be the original work of the autor UP9, but what makes me wonder is that the image lacks EXIF informations at all and also internet is full of this file. Some search results on Google have even larger size than the picture here on Commons so it's impossible for me to state which image is/was the original one. --2A00:1028:83B8:3696:A946:F7E7:9A3D:921F 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Or in other words, is there a way to find whether the image is copyvio or not by finding whether Commons has been the very first upload on the internet, please? --2A00:1028:83B8:3696:D531:D23:F6A1:242 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no automated way to find out whether an image was first published on Commons. But if you happen to find this photo in a publication prior to the upload date at Commons (3 June 2009) or with an attribution to anyone else than "UP9" there is a good chance that our file is a copyvio. I did a search with TinEye and the earliest date that came up for external publications was 23 November 2009, so this is inconclusive. Could you please share a link to any larger versions you found? These would be interesting to check. This version is larger but according to its metadata it was created with Paint.Net so it might have just been upsized. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Here are some larger versions: [16], [17], [18] (4th from the top), [19] (Cites "Wikipedia" as a source although their file is larger in size. As you say, that might be upsized.). --2A00:1028:83B8:3696:D531:D23:F6A1:242 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if you check these larger versions they are very pixelated so they are obviously not used in the original resolution. By the way, : this is just as large as the Commons file. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bruno 4.jpg

Hello, folks. Perhaps there's something that I don't understand about Flickr licensing, but something struck me as odd when I was reviewing a draft on the English Wikipedia. The above-named file has been checked out as okay by your Flickr bot, but the person who uploaded the file to Flickr wasn't the photographer, and that person didn't make any claims (that I could see) that she really is the holder of the photo's copyright. Is this photo really acceptable here on Commons? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Flickrbot is just a bot; all it does is check that the license on Flickr matches the license it's been uploaded here. It seems like it should be deleted; feel free to nominate it for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

maps and graphs in CBS (Dutch stat centre) reports

Is there any rule under which the maps and graphs in CBS reports like this and this could be uploaded to Commons? They'd be really handy for some articles I'm working on, and the CBS is part of the Dutch government, but I'm not familiar with the copyright rules surrounding that. Amphicoelias (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The content at their website is released under a cc-by license but they don't specify which version. Someone could mail them and ask them to clarify. Natuur12 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright expiration in the UK

According to en:List of countries' copyright lengths, in the UK copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharpe Richard Browdler 1847-1909.jpg it was somehow concluded that all pre-1911 UK works would be out of copyright. If we would conclude that this would be a correct assessment, then we should create a {PD-UK-1911} template. But as far as I know, most countries with the PMA+70 rule introduced it retroactively. Any thoughts? Jcb (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: The 'current' UK copyright law, when passed in 1988, still had a 50 year pma term. The "Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995" extended the term to 70 pma, as long as certain conditions (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/16/made) applied. The relevant ones are, briefly:
  • Works currently under copyright fall under the new rules, unless the older rules would have granted a longer term, and
  • Any 'existing work' whose copyright expired before 31 Dec 1995, but was still in copyright in another country of the European Economic Area on 1 July 1995, would be retroactively restored for the remainder of the 70 pma term. Any works that this applied to would have entered the public domain, again, sometime prior to 1 Jan 2016, but would 'possibly' have been eligible for a restored US copyright under the URAA.
- Reventtalk 18:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So all works of which the author died before 31 december 1945 fell under the old PMA+50 rule. So if I understand correctly, this is no longer effective, because all works of which the author died before 1947 are also out of copyright with the new term? Jcb (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Yes, the 'extra twenty years' was usually retroactive, but went into effect over twenty years ago. It would only matter if the 'renewed copyright' (iirc, that's the term they used) made a work eligible for a restored US copyright under the URAA. - Reventtalk 19:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly a correction, that argument that I proposed at the DR is solely about photographs taken in that period. I did not say anything about all UK works.

Secondly, the issue is that the enWP article is an article based on the law as it is now, and it is a gross simplification to say that all images outside of the US are pma+70, hence 1947 is a definitive cut-off.

Thirdly, this becomes harder again when you and a few others are hardline trying to impose pma+70 on old images where we have no author information, which adds uncertainty due to the lack of death date certainty.

Now, we are used to the US's more complex set of copyright legislation, however, we then think that the other countries have a simple model. While many of our images are more recent, the simple fact is that in Commonwealth countries the copyright on photographic literary works is different than written literary works which are different again from cinematographic images, This is all due to evolution of law and new technology. Our licensing has been blind to the British 1862, and 1911 Acts that effected copyright through the Commonwealth, and these acts put many works into the public domain. The complicating factor is US law where we doubly apply two sets of copyright law, where the sourcing information, and exact lack of knowledge and difficulty with demonstrating publication. For the cases that I proposed I said that {{PD-UK-unknown}} would suffice, and I do not think that an extra license adds clarity if we accept that its application covers the cases that I proposed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The use of {{PD-UK-unknown}} implies some incertainty about the copyright sitiation. It would IMHO be much better if we have templates that we can apply without assumptions. Could you give a clear explanation why all pre-1911 UK photographs would be PD? Knowing such a thing would be very helpful for future cases. Jcb (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I disagree with your assertion in that DR that all UK photographs created prior to 1911 are public domain. Let us take the hypothetical example of a photograph created in the UK in 1900 by a photographer who lives until 1960 that was published in the UK in 1910. Under the terms of the Copyright Act 1911, copyright protection is extended to this photo as if the act had been in force at the date when the work was made, and it gets a term of creation + 50 years. So our example photo falls into the public domain on January 1, 1951. When the Copyright Act 1956 comes into effect most works get life + 50 years except photos are granted a term of publication + 50 years, but its transitional provisions keep the term of creation + 50 years for preexisting photos. So our photo is still PD. When the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is enacted it extends terms to life + 70 yeas, but it contains a provision that states that published photographs and photographs created before 1 June 1957 are still to be governed by the 1956 Act. So again our photo is still PD. However, when The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 came into effect, it restored copyright protection in the UK to works that had previously entered the public domain, if the work was still protected by copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA. On 1 July 1995 our hypothetical photograph had a term of at least life+50 in one or more EEA countries, and as our photographer died in 1960, it was still protected somewhere in the EEA. So our hypothetical photograph would no longer be public domain, and now would have a copyright term that would extend to life+70 years, i.e. until January 1, 2031. The National Archives has nice flowcharts for determining UK copyright duration in their document Copyright and related rights. —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Copyright law of the United Kingdom, the pre-1911 copyright term for all works was "the lifetime of the author plus 7 years, or for 42 years from first publication, whichever was longer." The 1911 copyright act extended this to 50 years pma but only for works first published after 1 July 1912. So, works published before July 1912 would have fallen under a maximum copyright term of 42 years, which expired in 1954. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to the hypothetical in my example, as the Copyright Act 1842 did not extend copyright protection to photographs, just books and dramatic pieces. Even if a photo was published in a manner that was protected that would not change the analysis of the hypothetical, as a photograph created in the UK in 1900 by a photographer who lives until 1960 that was published in a manner protected in the UK in 1910 would nonetheless still have copyright protection in the UK until January 1, 2031. —RP88 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Roscosmos EVA photos

Hi, Is there an agreement with Roscosmos concerning space images? for example, can this image, seen free non-commercial license be free for Wikipedia commons? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no any special agreement (with whom?) with Roscosmos. Ruslik (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik is correct. Further, no image from the European Space Agency's website should be uploaded to Commons unless it is specifically released under a free license (as with Rosetta NAVCAM images) as works by ESA are automatically copyrighted All Rights Reserved, unlike NASA images which are automatically released from copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Unknown author

I have uploaded an image, which shows a poem, written in Arabic script (Nupe language). The poem was taken from A. W. Banfield, J. L. Macintyre, «A grammar of the Nupe language, together with a vocabulary», published in 1915 (so, the poem was first published in 1915 too). The author of the poem is unknown. The only available information is that this poem was composed in late nineteenth century (according to Roger Blench, «Oral literature genres of the Nupe of Central Nigeria»).

So, this poem is in public domain, or the image should be deleted? - صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image of the poemː File:Нупе аджамі.png.

A work of an unknown author published in the UK in 1915 is {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1923}}. --ghouston (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

File:ISS-50 EVA-2 (l) Thomas Pesquet.jpg

I believe this file is not free see here other files from this EVA may be non-commercial license only. Golan's mom (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a nc license only. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. If a photograph is taken by a NASA astronaut in the commission of their duties, then it is public domain (without copyright) because they are U.S. Government employees, regardless of what the license indicator is on Flickr. If the photographer is an ESA astronaut or Roscosmos cosmonaut, then the image is copyrighted (again, regardless of any Flickr license). In this case, since this is essentially a selfie by ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet, it would indeed be copyrighted. Each image from the NASA Johnson Flickr feed (and others like it) should be carefully scrutinized before uploading here, and of course we should exercise the precautionary principle when there is any evidence of the above. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ruslik & Huntster, some of the photos in the Category:ISS Expedition 50 EVAs were uploaded from flicker where they have a license "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)". Is this OK for Commons? how do you check if these conditions or the proper license was added to the relevant images? Thanks! Golan's mom (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
אמא של גולן, that Flickr account can claim whatever license it wants, but legally speaking, any photograph or work by a U.S. Government employee is public domain, so that claim is irrelevant. I think they choose that CC license to cover themselves for when they post photographs from ESA or Roscosmos, but it is misleading in general. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Huntster but how do you know if that's maybe because the images were NOT taken by a NASA employee? shouldn't we relate the license mentioned at the flicker account if that's the source of the upload? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
אמא של גולן, just use some logic and adhere to the precautionary principle. Also, if there's no evidence that an image was taken by ESA or Roscosmos, then it is generally okay to assume it is NASA. Regarding the license on Flickr, look at it this way: If you know that it is a NASA image, then upload it here as PD-USGov-NASA; if you don't know, then don't upload it since Commons doesn't accept CC Non-Commercial licenses. Don't overthink it. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this is the correct link. Credits: ESA/NASA. -- Geagea (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Images in public domain books

I have a book published in the US between 1923 and 1963 whose copyright was not renewed, so it's in the public domain. Are the images and photos in the book also in the public domain? Gatoclass (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary so. It depends on specific circumstances of each photo. Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Each separate work has its own copyright status -- the images are not necessarily tied to the literary copyright of the book text. It was possible to renew a photograph without renewing the entire book (especially if the authors were different), etc. If the photographs or images had been previously published, they may have been renewed earlier along with the earlier publication; lack of renewal of a later book would not affect that. It does mean that the images and photographs were published, at least, and so (if 1923 or later) would need a renewal 27 or 28 years after its initial publication, whenever that was. If the images and photographs/images were original to the book, the odds are pretty high they are now public domain, but it's good to check if there is a photographer named who is different than the book author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Also look for used by permission or similar wording in any list of illustrations or Acknowledgements section that may be present, as this may name a separate rights-holder or agency.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Images from a book on archive.org

I found some photos in a book on archive.org - Into the frozen south - which was first published in London in September 1923. The accompanying details say "Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT". Is it possible to use these? Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't rely on archive.org copyright status, usually, especially for non-U.S. works (since that site says nothing about the copyright in the country of origin). The author of that book was en:James William Slessor Marr, who died in 1965, so the book's text is under UK copyright until 2036. (Frank Hubert Shaw, who helped with the text it sounds like, died in 1960.) The U.S. status would depend on if the book was also published in the U.S. at the same time -- if not within 30 days of UK publication (or if was properly renewed), it has a U.S. copyright until 2019. But, it's likely the photographs were taken by someone else, so the copyright status of those is completely different. The first photo is credited to the Topical Press Agency, meaning it was probably previously published. As for the others... it sounds like the photographer for the trip was John Charles Bee-Mason, who died in 1957, so his photos are still under copyright in the UK. It sounds like he left the trip early, and most of the photographs were then taken by en:Hubert Wilkins, who died in 1958. He was Australian, so if his photographs were first published in Australia, they may be OK -- but if they were first published in the UK, then they are still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Bystander selfie

Hi, Please see my proposal here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Works published in Mexico in 1952 or earlier

I need help understanding a few things from Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Specifically, I was looking to upload an image from a book published in 1932. I can't find any date for the author's death online (if it was before 1953, the book would be PD). So, since his death date is unknown does the work effectively function under 100 years after publication?

Also, in regards to works by the government; are works published before 1953 in the PD? I am confused as to whether there is retroactive extension for those works since the prior section mentions there wasn't an extension for known authors of non-government works. The government section only says, "As with known authors, the term was extended repeatedly in the past". It isn't clear whether old works were exempted from the extension. Xochiztli (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

At the time, I believe the term was 20pma. It was increased to 30pma at some point I think in the 1950s, then increased to 50pma in 1982. It is that latter one which creates the "died before 1952" line, since those would have expired before the 50pma was introduced. Later increases to 70pma and 100pma have both apparently also been non-retroactive, so those just serve to extend the copyright for authors who died 1952 or later. There is a further wrinkle to Mexico's laws -- before I think 1947 or 1948, there was a registration requirement, otherwise works became PD very quickly (within a year or two). When they did away with that requirement in 1947, they gave a one-year grace period for authors of PD works to register them to regain their copyright -- but there had to be a registration. We have no way of checking to see if any such registrations were filed, so that does not help Commons much, unfortunately. But really, we'd probably have to find the year the author died. If there is a name (and it's not a pseudonym), then it's not anonymous. Although, if the photograph was not taken by the book author, it may well have a separate copyright status. Was it published earlier, or was it a photo first published in the book? If there is no photographer named, that may make it anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Las leyes de derechos de autor de Mexico nunca fueron retroactivas. Según el art. 1185 inc. I del Código Civil de 1928, las obras literarias (incluye libros) se protegen por 5 años desde su publicación y solo si están registradas debiendo renovar el registro cada 5 años hasta un máximo de 30 (si no se renueva se pierden los derechos). Mientras que las fotografías se protegen por 30 años desde su publicación sin necesidad de registrarlas (art. 1185 inc. IV). Cada reforma fue más estricta (aumentó los plazos); aún así, la ley actual (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor de 1996) protege los libros por 50 años desde la publicación de la primera edición (art. 127), por lo que el libro está en el dominio público, no importa la fecha de muerte del autor. Sobre las fotografías, la Ley Federal Sobre el Derecho de Autor de 1948 dice que la protección dura 20 años más que la vida del autor, pero es de dominio público si el autor muere sin herederos (art. 8), las obras anónimas, pseudónimas o de autor desconocido se protegen por 30 años desde la fecha de creación (art. 28). Si es una fotografía, esto significa que el plazo corre desde la fecha en que fue tomada y no desde cuando fue publicada por primera vez. La Ley Federal Sobre el Derecho de Autor de 1956 protege las fotografías 25 años más que la vida del autor (si es conocido) o 30 años desde su creación (incluso si es inédita y nunca se publicó) (art. 20). Esa ley estaba vigente el 1 de enero de 1963 (1932+30+1), por lo que; si es anónima, es de dominio público. Si es de autor conocido, la fecha de muerte del autor es muy importante y no puedo dar una respuesta contundente. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.jpg

File is sourced to flickr.com/photos/marlon-cocqueel/24906208564/ but clicking on that link brings you to a Yahoo! login page. Do you now need to login to Flickr to check a file's licensing? Would someone mind checking if this file's licensing is correct? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That link’s a 404 for me, albeit a fancy one; I made sure I was logged in. The user account exists; a quick look at the gallery titles there didn’t look promising.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a broken link, is a private file. We can not verify its content. You could request a OTRS permission from the owner of the Flickr account. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For if it helps in anything, it is true that this photo was taken on 5 March, 2016. She dedicated that day to the signing of autographs, anyone who attended could take that photo. See this sequence. But our copy is not the original, it is of low resolution and has no metadata. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iris Mittenaere 2016.jpg. De728631 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Videos of speeches

Hi, Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

file description not matching vis a vis licence

Hi,

While surfing came across File:Rizwanmahai.jpg this file. I am amused at description of the file does not seem to tally with licensing !

Mahitgar (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I will say: speedy delete as F4 (Failed license review). It is used only on a user page. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I deleted it per Ruslik's argument. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright permission for multiple images

Hi

I uploaded a few images and they were deleted or due for deletion due to no copyright declaration. I have now uploaded copyright emails for 4 of the files. One of the files was already deleted and I tried to undelete it but it said it hadn't been deleted so I'll just see what happens with them.

It is a lot of hassle to upload an email for each image so is it possible for me to list all of the images I will upload in an email or give a blanket declaration that anything I upload will belong to me?

I saw mentioned that I can have the declaration on my website. If so then that will need to be a blanket declaration so how should it be worded? Some of the images I upload won't be on the website yet.

The instructions seem to go round in circles quite a bit so it seems it would be much easier to have a declaration for people to sign when they join or else a declaration as part of the uploading process.

Thanks

Stuart Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmiles99 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright declaration by anonymous uploader is invalid if the image was earlier published elsewhere. Please follow the rules. Ankry (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
you need to provide help to the uploader. do not say "follow the rules": it is patronizing. it is not "invalid", it is just not acceptable to you and your cynicism. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So even though I am the copyright owner I can't upload to wikimedia if I uploaded it somewhere before? These are images that I previously uploaded to stock websites but you can see on the stock websites that I am the owner and have not relinquished being the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmiles99 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way is probably to license them via COM:OTRS. That way we can host them however do bear in mind that the odds of you continuing to make money out of the images will be diminished if you freely license them here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
you have no evidence that less money will be made if images are shared. you realize getty is charging money for images that are here? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I did email OTRS with the standard email saying I am the owner. Do I have to wait for the reply before uploading to wikimedia? I want to upload quite a few images so I just uploaded 4 of them to see what happened. What I really need is a procedure so I can upload without any rejections.

Paid stock images has seen it's day. More and more images for less and less money wheras free sites are on the up.

--Stuartmiles99 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

yes, the OTRS backlog can be 30 days. images have been deleted and restored before. there are also hybrid licenses such as Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits that effectively restrict images to online use. and you can market higher resolution upon request. fyi. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I checked your ToU; looks not compatible with any acceptable license here due to 1. limited audience (to use on social media, websites, blogs, print media, templates, presentations or products. Usage is limited to the above allowed uses.) 2. no redistribution (not allowed to resell or redistribute the images as is or with just small changes but you can use my images incorporated in your own designs for sale) 3. revocable (Stuart Miles reserves the right to limit excessive use, investigate any abuse, and block users if necessary.). If you decided to grant a CC BY-SA 4.0 license for all images in your site, you can mention that license there. If you decided to grant a CC BY-SA 4.0 license for a few images uploaded here, you need to make sure that the permission is coming from you. There are two ways (at least) to do so. 1. Send permission mails for each set of uploads mentioning the file name links that you uploaded here from an address mentioned here. 2. Verify your user account. To do so, send an email to OTRS and ask the volunteer to mark your account verified. (Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F #3). Jee 05:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I have emailed the OTRS asking for permission to be granted to the account. I sent the standard permission request but started it:

I hereby affirm that I, Stuart Miles, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all of the media work I will upload to wikimedia account stuartmiles99. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. etc...

I didn't use the words 'mark my account verified' but I said 'I wish to upload my images to my wikimedia account stuartmiles99 without having to send permission statements for each upload'. I hope they see that as the same thing.

I gave links to my profiles on stock image sites as proof of ownership (you can see my name on the sites) and I attached a copy of my passport.

I agree that the ToU on my website are different than the CC BY-SA 4.0 license but the terms of service on all websites are different so that isn't a problem for me. Also, quite often there are different terms for different sizes on different websites. I prefer to show the CC BY-SA 4.0 license conditions on the wikimedia website rather than refering users to a license on my website as the sizes and images might be different.

If someone downloads the image from wikimedia then they can follow the terms of service for CC BY-SA 4.0 and that is fine for me. I was most concerned about websites bulk downloading everything and then uploading them to their own website and offering them for sale or free with no reference to me or my website. I understand that with license CC BY-SA 4.0 they can bulk distribute them but need to link back to me if I say that the attribution is 'Stuart Miles - http://Blogpiks.com'. I am happy for them to do that if they keep the link.

Perhaps you can tell me if all that is ok and let me know if there is something else I need to do. Do I need to add anything to the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartmiles99 ?

Best Regards

--Stuartmiles99 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

FDMS4, could you handle this ticket? Jee 13:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: We have received the eMails (ticket:2017012310008291); I have tagged the remaining upload with {{OTRS received}} for now. Hesitant to go through the release verification process due to scope concerns …    FDMS  4    16:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks  FDMS4. Yes; I too doubtful about the scope of those artworks. Jee 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have sent a further email, ticket number 2017012410003203, which gives more information - (urls of sites with the images in my name and my passport copy) as well as a declaration that everything I upload to account stuartmiles99 is owned by me. If it is still doubted that I own the images on those sites I can send some psd files of the 2d artwork with seperate layers so you can see the elements that made up the images.

Could you please explain what you mean about a problem with the scope of the artwork. I have read the wiki section about the scope but it says quite a lot and I am not sure which part you are referring to.

I am happy with the artwork to be released on wikimedia with the CC BY-SA 4.0 sharealike license as I get the referals which is the idea of attribution. The images on my website are a smaller size (longest side 800px) so have different terms (don't require attribution). Therefore I don't want to have a license that covers both wikimedia and the website because they are different concepts.

Hope this all makes sense but please let me know what doubts you have or where this is against the terms of the license. If there are still problems then let me know what I can do to solve them.

Thanks.

--Stuartmiles99 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartmiles99: First of all: Thank you very much for your interest in donating media to Wikimedia Commons! The permissions issue is something that we could get sorted out rather easily; the real problem I see here is that although your content is certainly useful for users looking for artwork to use as clip art, Wikimedia Commons is most likely not the right place to host it. Here on Wikimedia Commons our mission is to build and maintain a repository of free media that is educationally useful; we generally do not host personal artworks unless there is nothing else we could illustrate its subject with (i.e. drawings of persons of which no free photos exists). Thanks again; please let us know if you have any further questions.    FDMS  4    20:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would these images come under the wikimedia scope? http://blogpiks.com/Characters/Education/

They would be useful for anyone doing education articles or presentations and I am sure not found elsewhere on wikimedia.

--Stuartmiles99 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartmiles99: The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Thus, while those images are certainly useful, Wikimedia Commons is not the right place to host them either.    FDMS  4    20:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

FOP in India

See COM:FOP#India.

Section 52 (1) (t) is cited, as the relevant provision of the Indian Copyright Act (see http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=128098 for the text) that allows for FOP. That section cites Section 2 (c) (iii), however, our analysis then cites Section 52 (u) (ii) (which is referring to 'cinematograph film'), to establish that certain works don't fall under FOP.

This is wrong.

(c) “artistic work” means—

(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;

(ii) a work of architecture; and

(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;

— Section 2 (i), Copyright Act, 1957 (as consolidated up to Act No. 49 of 1999)

I appears to me, from this, that Indian law indeed allows for FOP of 'all works of artistic craftmanship' permanently situated in public places. We need to fix COM:FOP. - Reventtalk 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: , @Yann: , @JuTa: - as people who have made substantive edits to that section. - Reventtalk
The only edit I did was this, which I wouldnt call substantive. From my side: feel fre to correct the section id you are sure its a correction. --JuTa 16:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It allows inclusion of artistic works in cinemetographic films, yes. But it would seem that photographs / paintings / drawings of public works are restricted to works of artistic craftsmanship and architecture, which is more or less what our section says. The concluding paragraph is more about the primary photograph restriction, I think. We could probably add the statement that inclusion of artistic works in films is OK, but otherwise it seems accurate to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The major point here is that the policy page, as it stands, reads as if we are citing the 'wrong' sub-clause (i), in a way that is misleading. It needs rewritten, once we are sure we know what the law is actually trying to 'mean'. - Reventtalk 06:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh... I guess you are referring to the point that the "OK" summary does not mention the "other works of artistic craftsmanship"? We used to just include the relevant sections of the law, which seem pretty clear that they allow 2D representations of public architecture, sculpture, and "other works of artistic craftsmanship", and that they allow cinematographic works to include anything. That latter part is an addition to the UK law, which otherwise it inherits almost completely. The cinematographic bit is relevant to Commons -- a video including public 2D artistic works is not a copyright violation. Jim added the explanative bit in between the law sections to point out that the first section does not allow photos of most public 2D works. I don't see that we are referencing sub-clause (i) in any confusing way other than in regard to cinematographic works. Jim's summary below looks accurate except that there should also be an an "OK" line about cinematographic works containing any artistic work situated in a public place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree.

"52. – (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:—
(s) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;
(t) the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a

sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access;

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(c) “artistic work” means—
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) a work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship"

This is certainly convoluted legal drafting. I read it to mean that FOP covers all architecture, wherever located. At (t) it refers to sculpture and "any other work of artistic craftsmanship". Although I don't like the drafting at all, I think this excludes paintings, drawings (including diagrams, maps, charts or plans), engravings and photographs because they are named in section (i) and not section (iii). I think that if the drafters had intended to include all of those, they would have referred to section (i) and section (iii). This is consistent with UK law. I think we need to change our current statement to something like:

  • OK for architecture located anywhere in India, whether or not accessible to the public
  • OK for sculpture and works of artistic craftsmanship if such work is permanently situate[d] in a public place or any premises to which the public has access
  •  Not OK for copyrighted paintings, drawings (including diagrams, maps, charts or plans), engravings and photographs

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

    • It does allow all artistic works situated in a public place to be included in a cinematographic film -- just not photographs, drawings, etc. of them. Other than that though I think what you have is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's indeed convoluted, and hard to parse... the main thing that leapt out at me (after really looking at it a bit) was that our 'rule', or at least the rationale behind it, had become broken over time. I think Jim is probably correct, that Indian FOP applies to architecture, sculpture, and the 'other works of artistic craftsmanship' that are defined, annoyingly, by what they are not. - Reventtalk 06:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos of a book's contents

Came across File:Spoorslag_70_3.jpg and File:Spoorslag_70_2.jpg. It would seem to me that the first file is a stylised map, which would be copyrighted. Same goes for the Intercity logo. The second file contains the copyrighted Cemsto and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) logos. File:Spoorslag_70_1.jpg was already deleted 4 years ago for copyright violation. What should be done about these 2 files? -- Spinal83 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the first scheme is copyrighted and should be deleted. I, however, think that in the second image the logos are de minimis. The deleted file contained a book cover, which is more complicated than a page with a timetable. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Signs for Women's March SF.jpg

Are the banners in the above poster free to use or copyrightable in the US? --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the Love poster is trivial but I see what they did there with the "Government". So that might be above TOO. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I cropped out the "Government" banner and requested revdel. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've now taken care of the first revision. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Doomsday Clock image

The Bulletin calls this theirs. Admins and others at IRC, call it simple shapes and PD. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You're proposing a false dichotomy. Certainly the Bulletin could claim a trademark on it, but that doesn't mean they have a copyright on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, thank you for the feedback, my friend. Actually, I didn't mean to propose a false dichotomy. I just meant to say what was said. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also call this simple shapes and PD. But a {{Trademarked}} tag would probably be justified. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:MC Oran (logo 1946).png

File was uploaded as "own work" which seem unlikely, but I'm not sure if its simple enough to be below the TOO for Algeria since I couldn't find any information on Algeria in COM:TOO. If the logo was created in 1946, then I'm also not sure that it would be old for PD because of it's age. Should this be treated as COM:FU? For reference, File:MC Oran Logo.gif is licensed as {[tl|PD-textlogo}] and it's essentially the same imagery. So, if its licensing is OK, then the 1946 logo should be PD as well, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"I scanned it so it's my work"

Hi,

Can someone take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Brown, Canberra City FC, 1978.jpg, please?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: I've responded. You are correct to nominate the files for deletion. Elisfkc (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kids Castle Playground in Cranberry Community Park.jpg

I have a suspicion that the copyright status of this file is unsatisfactory - but I don't know for sure; so I'm reluctant to tag it or nominate for deletion directly, and I thought I'd ask here.

I came to it while answering en:Wikipedia:Help desk#adding photo, where en:User: Cranberrytownshippa was asking about using this file (they had uploaded it successfully, but not changed the WP article to refer to it, and couldn't understand why the article wasn't showing it). As I explained to them in the answer, I am concerned that they have licensed this image as an individual. It is of course possible that they actually did take this picture as an individual, and do hold the copyright; and perhaps they will come back to me and say so. But I'm concerned that they might rather be an employee or contractor of the municipal authorities, and just assume that the they have authority to use the picture. Should I take action at this point, or give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they reply? --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft Sweden Flickr Account

So, after seeing the images on Category:Flickr images needing human review like File:Microsoft Word 2010 Icon-1-.svg and File:HoloLens front (16337648861).jpg, where images were uploaded to Flickr from "Microsoft Sweden" (which I thought was a Flickr Washing account), I emailed Microsoft's PR team. I just got a response (OTRS Ticket #2017013010016867) saying that it was an official account, but the licenses are "out-of-date" and they would like the images deleted. So, do we delete the images (that in my mind, are clear copyright violations) or do we keep them, add Template:Flickr-change-of-license, and say "sorry, but Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable"? Elisfkc (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are never out of date because you can't revoke them. Sorry Microsoft, but you should have done some research on that before posting your images on Flickr. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but I'm hoping for a consensus/large amount of input on this, before informing them of this. Elisfkc (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"Out of date" could be their way of saying that the person who uploaded the files was not authorised to license the parent company's copyrighted content – which seems like a likely scenario. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX: so, delete the files? Elisfkc (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not a clear-cut case. When a person makes a statement on behalf of a company, one is generally not expected to question their authority to make that statement. (Anything else would make day-to-day business dealings rather difficult.) The default assumption, unless there are other indications, is that they're acting within their authority. The issue boils down to whether that default assumption can be made in good faith, or if this is a case of "if it seems too good to be true..." —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly why I'm looking for a lot of input. Elisfkc (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I already saw DR(s) about content coming from similar Microsoft local countries Flickr accounts but, sorry, I'm unabble to give you the relevant link(s). :( Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Images from this account have previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 10 start screen (16337613651).jpg). Elisfkc (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a clear case of how apply the Common Sense. As I mentioned at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_7_wallpaper.jpg, the releasing of that wallpaper under a free license by Microsoft Sweden (not Microsoft Corporation) is clearly a mistake. CC licenses are irrevocable, but not in cases of Flickr Washing: even if Microsoft Sweden is an official account, is managed by Microsoft AB, not Microsoft Corporation, and I don't see any intentions by Microsoft Corporation to release its non-free contents under a free license, and the publication of the wallpaper (and many non-free contents) by Mycrosoft Sweden is, again, just a mistake (a nicer way to say Flickr Washing). The publications from Microsoft Sweden should not affect the copyright status of the contents owned by Microsoft Corporation under All Rights Reserved. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: Got it, opening deletion request now. Elisfkc (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of the {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} (now a redirect to {{Copyvio}}) case a few years ago. Based on misleading e-mail communication by a person of Ubisoft Germany's PR department, it was supposed that all screenshots of Ubisoft games are released under a free license. Sounds highly unlikely? Indeed, and in the course of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3, thanks to Wikimedia France contacting Ubisoft's headquarters and finally clarifying the case, it was made clear that Ubisoft never intended such a licensing. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a similar case to what seemed to occur here. Elisfkc (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be an obvious case of a license that should never have been applied in the first case. Further, while licenses are indeed irrevocable, how about we just courtesy delete and not poke the bear for the sake of poking it. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's my thought exactly. Elisfkc (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Frances Marshall.jpg

This is obviously not "own work" by the uploader. The original was part of a 1919 yearbook of graduates, so I'm wondering if this would count as publication to make it PD-1923. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was a publication. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Does souvenir magnets fall under FoP in the Netherlands

This is a borderline de minimis according to the case book.

Hi,

I just uploaded this photo to flickr showing some souvenir magnets depicting clogs, canal houses, wind mills etc. on display at a souvenir stall in Central Amsterdam. I was considering to upload it to Commons, but I am in doubt whether it falls under FOP for Netherlands. Any opinions on that? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not as they are not "permanently" located in this souvenir stall. Ruslik (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I would upload it, based on de minimis for all the objects on display. The Flickr license applies as there would be no obvious superior copyright. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies Ruslik0 and Fæ. Ruslik, your argument makes sense. Fæ, I have a harder time following the de minimis argument, but I appreciate the link. If I read the guidelines it appears that the image fulfills all the criteria, which implies de minimis does not apply: 1. The main purpose of the file is to illustrate souvenier magnets, which is 3D art. 2. It would be natural to categorize it accordingly. 3. The magnets would be referred to in the description as would a sensible file name as it is the main subject of the image. 4. The magnets cannot removed from the picture without making it useless. It is completely crammed with magnets. 5. If I compare with the case book, the case shown here with the banners is a borderline example, which falls under de minimis, but here the main point is to make an accurate representation of the magnets face on, and not at an inclined angle. I have come to the conclusions that it does not fall under FoP in the Netherlands, nor under de minimis, so I will abstain from uploading. Pinging Carl Lindberg for confirmation that abstaining from upload to Commons would be the correct thing to do. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UK side label of Make Me Smile by Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel

I wonder whether the side label of "Make Me Smile (Come Up And See Me)" by Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel is copyrightable in the UK. The EMI logo is very big at the left half; the logo's bottom (technically) is cut off. --George Ho (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Five days later.... --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/01&oldid=574657045"