Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/02

Television show set with visible logo(s)

Would I be correct to assume that an image like this one would be problematic due to the logo in the image? This is not the exact image I would upload, but it's similar -- a television show's set, including one (or more) screens with that logo. My assumption is that the logo is creative enough that copyright would apply and prominent enough that there couldn't be a de minimis argument. I'm hoping others disagree. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If the logo is creative enough for copyright (the Full Frontal one is not), then a shot like this would become problematic imho. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Keep it. I faced a similar issue at Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Chemical Society - What Chemists Do - Nathan Allen.ogg. In that case I got a version with the logo edited out. In the image you show the logo is text and not eligible for copyright. Since the logo is a significant part of the subject matter of the image, by Commons:De minimis, the Commons community might say to delete it, but personally I think that is because of excessive caution. The image is about 5% of the picture and, for example, it is fairly routine to have images including copyrighted logos in photos of conferences or the background of events. Those organizations are intending to put their name into photos in a small way to promote themselves, so logos like this are an organizations own approximation of what should go into circulation as de minimis without needing legal permission. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it eligible?

This logo is designed many years ago. I doubt if User:Sodacan's the real designer/author. He seems to be reproducing that using a vector graphic software. Can he publish it under CC without attributing it to the real author? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am the real and only author.--Sodacan (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The copyrightable expression would be in the specific lines drawn, the small details, not the general idea of a lion and sun graphic. If you can find a bitmap version which has the same small details as the vector, i.e. that it copied that expression, and that source is still under copyright, then there could be an issue. If there is a such an original but it is out of copyright, it would be good to acknowledge the original author, but there is no copyright issue -- the license is fine. And if this is an original drawing (which is easily possible -- you can make original drawings with vector software just as easily as bitmaps) then there is also no issue. The uploader has amazing skill with vector software, as he or she has uploaded some incredible works over the years. So, most likely, there is no copyright issue and the license is fine. For this type of situation, you would need to actually identify a still-under-copyright source version for there to be anything worthwhile to discuss. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg: Sodacan's work seems to be derivative derivative of another work. See the other versions here, here. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

None of those have anything copyright-wise to do with each other. It's not the pose of the lion which is copyrightable, it is the detailed specific lines of the fur, rays, sword, etc. They are all different expressions of the same idea -- and ideas are not copyrightable, just specific expressions of those ideas. Copyright violations occur when you copy specific expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: So, one may reproduce this logo with unique details and claim that he's the author. I doubt! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you cannot reproduce the Peugeot logo. You have to distinguish between logos and heraldry. File:Lion and Sun (Pahlavi Dynasty).svg is actually not a logo but a heraldic crest. Traditionally heraldic images like crests and coats of arms are only defined by their description, i. e. the blazon. The blazon is usually not copyrighted but the actual depiction of a heraldic piece is left to the individual artist and becomes copyrighted once it gets created. A logo is a piece of applied art and is always copyrighted given that it is creative enough. So reproducing a logo with a slightly different layout would be a copyright infringement while heraldic works are traditionally free to reproduce as long as the blazon is observed. De728631 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you change enough of those details, correct that would not be a copyright violation. It would likely be a trademark violation though -- if a reasonable person would think the second version is related to the Peugeot symbol, it wouldn't matter if you also violate copyright or not. If it comes to a court case, judges may sometimes strive to find against you on both counts if it's an obvious trademark violation, and feels you are unfairly profiting, etc. The amount you have to change might depend on if it's an age-old symbol, as well -- at some point much of it would become en:scènes à faire, meaning those small details are the only copyrightable expression left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

File:MappingCourage20141015.jpg

Can this be uploaded as "own work" given COM:FOP#United States? Does the photographer need to have the permission of the artist(s) who painted the mural? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the mural is copyrighted, then permission from the artist or other copyright holder for the mural is probably required. --Gazebo (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this was created and published in 2008 so the mural is copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not exist in the US for this type of artwork. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Skippa Da Flippa January 2017.png

The file is a screenshot from a YouTube video and there is a link in the file's description which leads to here. I cannot tell, however, if that license link is just a general information page for all YouTube users, or actually a license applying to this particular file. Is the file's licensing correct? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The video is released under a free license. (Click on "Show more"). Yann (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Halfpenny.svg (and File:Halfpenny.png)

Are these images derivative works? --jdx ^Re: 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they appear to be derivatives. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Licensing of AWS (Amazon Web Services) Simple Icons

For the AWS Simple Icons category, the information on the category page indicates that the icons are licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0. At the same time, there does not appear to be a clear indication that the icons were released under a CC license. The source URL given on the category page leads to a 404 error page before redirecting to the main page of the AWS Blog, but an archived copy of the source URL (as well as an archived copy of a download page) does not say anything about the icons actually being released under a specific license. On a subsequent archived copy of the source URL, there is a comment from the blog entry's author (Jinesh) stating that there is no license file for the icons and that reuse of the icons by AWS customers and partners is permitted. Even so, it is not clear that this means that the icons are licensed under a free content license. In the AWS Blog, the 2011 release announcement is available at this URL, but once again, it does not mention the icons being released under a CC license. On Commons, there were two deletion requests regarding the AWS Simple icons; the conclusions indicated that the icons were not definitively licensed as free content, but at the same time, some of the icons could be retained on Commons because they were below the TOO. (Another possibility is that there was a notice from Amazon about the icons being licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0 but on a page that is no longer online; unless an archived copy of the page can be found, it is not likely to change anything.)

Assuming that the icons are not licensed as free content, it would seem useful to change the license information on the category page to {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. In addition, the file pages for icons such as this one should also probably have their license info changed. For the source URL, there is the question of whether the original source URL should be replaced with an archived version or the new URL. --Gazebo (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, I have changed the license information for the category and icons to {{PD-textlogo}} instead of CC BY-SA 3.0 and have specified an archived version of the source URL. --Gazebo (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gambit gaming logo.png

Is this simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or does it need to be treated as COM:FU. An archived version of the source url can be found here, but there's no mention of how the image is licensed. en:Gambit Gaming is based out of Germany, but I'm not sure if this would be considered to below the Germany's TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering File:Gambit gaming logo.png this should also be PD and the CC licence is dubious imho. On the other hand, the company seems to have been moved to the UK [1] where the TOO for logos is known to be very low. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Facebook profile picture of a politician. Can I use it?

The picture for Lynn Ruane is a terrible one and her face is barely visible. During her campaign and following her election she had a bunch of pictures taken by a photographer. They're all on her facebook page, most under "Previous Profile Pictures". Considering she is a public picture and has not objected to use of the picture by news outlets, are they fair game? Would the situation be different if I asked her for permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberivore (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Liberivore (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You would need to ask, and ensure that the release came from the photographer (the true copyright holder). Campaign photographs are not normally public domain. --Fæ (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

US Navy's sculpture at 68th Sapporo Snow Festival

So, I just uploaded a picture of the US Navy's sculpture at the 68th Sapporo Snow Festival. In Japan, there is no freedom of panorama in Japan for artistic work. However, because the sculpture was made by US Navy sailors, it can be argued that the sculpture is a "work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy...as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States" (basically Template:PD-USNavy). So, which one overrides the other one? Elisfkc (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If a work is not copyrightable you can freely photograph it as much as you like. The freedom of panorama limitations only apply to copyrighted works, but if this was in fact made by US Navy personnel on duty, it's free. De728631 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

File:The Golden Girls.jpg

Shot from TV, looks like flickr-washing. --Achim (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Deleted. Thank you for the notice. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status where author's death date is unknown

This section was archived on a request by: clpo13_(talk) 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine the copyright status of en:File:Kaithi2.JPG. The description says it was created by Babu Rama Smaran Lal in 1898. The problem is, I don't know when this person died. I did find a reference to him that says he was born in 1857, so, unless he lived to 100, his work is most likely public domain according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India, which establishes a copyright term of 60 pma. But without a death date, I can't be sure. Any advice? clpo13_(talk) 18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said it is unlikely that he lived to 100. So, you can safely assume that the text is in public domain. Often you can not find more precise information. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule... just a per-file consensus as to if there is a significant chance it is not public domain (i.e. the COM:PRP policy). Someone born that long ago would probably be borderline for a 70pma country, but is most likely OK for a 60pma country. Something by the same author published after 1923 might be different as to the U.S. copyright status, so it often does need to be a per-work decision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In that specific case (author born in 1857, 60 years p.m.a. in India and first publication, I assume, before 1923? The file description says written in 1898, but doesn't mention first publication) I too think we can quite safely assume public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This text appears in Linguistic Survey of India (1903) p. 253 (see en:Linguistic Survey of India, as a sample of khaiti literature. That's why his date of death is totally unknown. Nobody knows what happened to that babu after George Griegson met him in 1898. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 03:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If the date of death remains unknown, it is PD-old in India, UK (place where it was first published) and United States. -Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. This was all very useful info. clpo13_(talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Flickr Weirdness

So, this is weird on Flickr. The file File:NHM FirstFridays LeslieKalohi (1).jpg was uploaded with CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. If you follow the link (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nevercoolinschool/18582162312/in/album-72157654150051666/) from the file, it is licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0. But, if you refresh the page, the file is under All Rights Reserved. I've added Template:Flickr-change-of-license for the moment, but I really don't know which license is correct. Elisfkc (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have placed your comment on the image's talkpage. The closing Admin will decide, I guess. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

File deleted by Taivo. --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It changes back and forth just about every time I reload the page. I get the free license with the contradictory "PLEASE DO NOT USE WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION" shouting in the description, and all rights reserved (but without that part in the description) half the time. Did a bunch of wget requests and ran diffs on the output, but didn't find any obvious root cause (not that I would know what to look for). Maybe it's some cache bug at Flickr, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with which CDN node serves the content. Maybe it's two sets of publishing tools or API integrations that are "edit warring" by pushing updates, or something along those lines. Never seen anything like it before. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

tweets

I'm not sure how to deal with that: Category:Dakar Rally 2017 keeps 9 uploaded text snippets obviously copied from twitter. --Achim (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The uploader assumes the tweets to be ineligible for copyright. A very simple factual statement, without images, like File:Twiter - RDakar - Cancela Etapa9 - 10-1-2017.jpg might be below the threshold of originality. A more complex tweet with images and a bit of author's personality in the text, like File:Tweet I Casale - Seguimos - 2017.jpg crosses that line, I think. --rimshot^talk 22:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

PD-USGov?

Special:ListFiles/JHerbstman shows several scans of US Government bonds, recently uploaded by a new user who tagged them as {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Is this an appropriate tag, or is the personal copyright incorrect and the tag should be {{PD-USGov-Treasury}}? Thanks for any guidance. —Patrug (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Patrug: considering the fact that they gave a source (The Joe I. Herbstman Memorial Collection of American Finance), I'd say that {{PD-USGov-Treasury}} is the correct tag of the two. Elisfkc (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll make the revisions. —Patrug (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Attribution for Ontario Courts?

Wanted to upload something from the Ontario Courts. However, I can't figure out what the copyright tag should be... The policy indicates that they don't mind the material being reproduced accurately and with attribution (http://ontariocourts.ca/en/policy.htm). The closest I can find is the Open Free Licence for the Canadian Government, but since the website isn't a government website, I don't think it applies...help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wander099 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

First, being reproduced accurately does not sound like derivative works are allowed. Second, Reproduction of [...] any material [...] for the purposes of commercial redistribution, is prohibited clearly prohibits commercial use, which is required for a license to be considered free enough for Commons. --rimshot^talk 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

File:ROUpassport.jpg

Not sure if the licensing of this file is correct. It looks like the uploader took the non-free en:File:ROUpassportbiodata.png from English Wikipedia, blacked out the personal information, and then re-upoladed the file to Commons. That's fine if the original Wikipedia version is not subject to copyright, but seems incorrect otherwise. Would the "blacking out" make this a COM:DW and even if it did would it mean the copyright status of the original is no longer relevant? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it is {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Luther Strange

I'm looking to upload a screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abq9XOvZlpM (Luther Strange being sworn in to the U.S. Senate) to illustrate his article on Wikipedia until a better free image or official portrait comes out. Would video of the swearing in of a U.S. Senator be covered under Template:PD-CSPAN? MB298 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends on whether the swearing can be considered a part of debates. Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Archives New Zealand inaccurate CC licenses

I came across an image sourced from the Flickr account of "Archives New Zealand": File:'Crime_and_the_Law'_by_Bernard_Brown,_1969_(18137928705).jpg. It's a book cover from 1969, but they had uploaded it to Flickr under a CC license. There was no mention of them owning the copyright for the book cover. It was then copied into Commons. This seems incorrect. Using LinkSearch I found we have 1,712 images from "Archives New Zealand" -- I have no idea how many are invalid, but I suspect many are. JesseW (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the speedy tag. It's on Flickr Commons under the CC license -- so they think they have rights. It sounds like it was a book produced by the NZ government, meaning it was almost certainly Crown Copyright, and given that Archives New Zealand handles government documents, I don't know why it's so obvious they don't own the copyright. It seems virtually certain that it's OK, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair point; I somehow managed to miss that the book was a NZ government document. I'll look at some of the others. JesseW (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

File:'Merry Christmas' (16012056196).jpg should be under some PD tag, rather than the CC-license they listed. File:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (15705128256).jpg seems like a pretty clear derivative work of the film. It's not clear that this was taken by a government photographer: File:Bungy jumping from the Kawarau Bridge near Queenstown 1988 (10805217116).jpg. Most of them seem OK, but it is probably good to check. JesseW (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they probably put the CC license on everything they upload. Some are likely straight PD -- those can be changed. Agree on the Cuckoo's nest one -- that is not OK. The last one likely seems OK -- the government had to allow the operation, and it may make sense they had a photographer there to document it. Really, on those there isn't much reason to question the CC license unless there is a reason to believe they do not own the rights (such as the movie one). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. JesseW (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The CC licence can be construed as applying to the scan or reproduction itself, especially where the country of origin recognizes intellectual property in non-creative derivative works under a sweat of the brow or similar principle. Commons policy AIUI does not require users to recognize such rights, hence the disclaimer under {{PD-Art}}. New Zealand isn’t listed at COM:PDARTREUSE but Canada and the UK, pretty similar in legal practices, are both said to be uncertain in this regard. So even though we don’t require a free licence on a reproduction of PD works, having such licences can still be of benefit to those who might be deterred from using our content because of dubious legal status in their home country. At the very least I would treat it as a request for attribution, one I‘d be inclined to honour out of courtesy even where not obliged.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Scans are generally dealt with with {{PD-Scan}}, different than PD-Art which is photographs of items, and for scans the belief is that even sweat of the brow does not create a copyright, as the reproduction is purely mechanical and does not originate with the copier. Probably more likely they just set a default license on the Flickr account and did not bother to change the license on each file. (The PD-scan stuff does not mean that institutions still don't try to claim copyright, so you could still be right.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright check for http://avto-nomer.ru/

Hi. Would a Russian-speaker mind confirming that the site http://avto-nomer.ru/ is licensing their works as {{CC-by-4.0}}. I am checking the upload of File:ГАЗ-31029.png. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It does not seem so. There is a note that copying is free if the source is referenced, but nothing about derivative works. And I see no reference to any Creative Commons license there. Ankry (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Today's Chinese Version Bible Cover.jpg

Is the front cover of the Today's Chinese Version of the Bible, uploaded as File:Today's Chinese Version Bible Cover.jpg, copyrightable? It contains just words and textural background. Pinging Kencola, the uploader, for invitation. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks too simple for copyright to me, but it depends on the country of publication. If this book is originally from China, the calligraphy could be copyrighted. See Commons:Threshold of originality#China (PRC). De728631 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

copyright, but can we use on Commons?

Uruguay peso banknotes can we use on Commons? What think you it? Szajci ^pošta 06:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

and trinidad-tobago's dollar? I said this site: http://www.central-bank.org.tt/content/copyright-notice-0 Szajci ^pošta 18:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Currency does not mention either country. Uruguay and Trinidad and Tobage don't have exceptions from copyright for banknotes though so we can't use them here unless they are old enough for the copyright to have expired. De728631 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Uvlora.jpg

File seems unlikely to be "own work", but it does seem simple enough to be {{PD-textlogo}}. en:University of Vlorë is located in Albania, but there's nothing about the country listed in COM:TOO. Also, I am unable find a source for the logo online and the university's official website appears to be down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Just put {{PD-textlogo}} on it. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Ruslik. That will fix the licensing. Who should be listed as the author? The university? I am unable to find anything online that shows the logo being used by the university, so I'm not sure if it's OK to list them as author/owner. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it is not copyrighted the author is not important. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

OK Ruslik. Would you might checking the file when you have a spare moment to make sure I didn't make any mistakes? Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Separating copyrights - copyrighted characters in Commons

Under what circumstances can depictions of copyrighted characters appear in Commons? A comic publisher has asked about putting character images in Commons.

Consider Homer Simpson on English Wikipedia en:File:Homer Simpson 2006.png. Can someone describe the circumstances under which this image could be hosted in Commons? Is it possible for the copyright holder to apply a free license to this image without applying a license that releases copyright restrictions on the character? Imagine that the intent is only to apply a free license to that one image, and not to give permission for anyone to reuse the character in other contexts.

I asked a similar question about copyrighted 3D sculpture, wondering if an artist could apply a free license to a particular photo of a sculpture while keeping the sculpture itself under a non-free license. I got a mixed response. Elsewhere, I asked about how Commons manages photos of buildings in non-FOP countries, if the copyright holder of a building wishes to apply a free license to a photo of the building without applying a free license to the design of the entire building. What all these cases have in common is asking about the circumstances under which Commons can host a depiction of non-free work, with permission of the copyright holder, without applying a free license to the work depicted in the image. If anyone has any insight about depicting fictional characters specifically or any general rule for all of these cases then I would appreciate thoughts. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This question is not really about Commons. It is about the meaning of CC licenses. However this meaning was muddled some time ago due to the some changes in the legal position of Creative Commons regarding their licenses. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruslik0 I fail to understand what you mean by saying this is not about Commons. If I uploaded an image of a famous comic book character to Commons with a CC license only for the image but not for any copyright of the character concept, would you have an opinion on whether Commons could keep that image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. You have to distinguish between copyright and the rights that are granted by the licence. Commercial CC licenses as required for Commons enable anyone to make and sell modifications of the licensed work, but the copyright remains with the original author. So while the character concept and even the licensed image would still be copyrighted to the original author, he would have to tolerate third parties making money off his ideas. De728631 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume anything that's included in a CC licensed image is fair game for derived works. If that picture of Homer Simpson was CC licensed, you could make an animation or a sculpture out of it, but you couldn't use any other copyrighted elements from the Simpsons (like plot lines or other characters). --ghouston (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that all unambiguous derived works of copyrighted characters have to be presumed to be copyrighted of the character creator. If the copyright holder of the character is releasing representative images of the character without a no derivatives constraint, they will have a hard job taking someone to court for using those images to make more simple derivatives, including making an animation, copycat merchandising, or 3D models or computer games based on the free image. Their IP lawyer or production company would advise them not to do it. While De728631 is correct, I have a hard job imagining why a character creator or the copyright holding media company, would permanently damage their IP rights for a mainstream character like Homer Simpson. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to press a bit harder here. I think I am asking about the circumstances under which Commons hosts derivatives of non-free works. We seem to capture all visual characteristics of copyrighted characters in Cosplay by the guide at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay. Somehow, Commons practice is to present these derivative works of non-free character concepts. Beyond that, we already have entire collections of nonfree works shown in derivative images in the freedom of panorama collections, like {{FoP-Germany}}. I feel like these situations are comparable, because in all cases somehow Commons is hosting derivative works of nonfree content. Currently neither our costume nor freedom of panorama templates give notice about being depictions of non-free works. Is there something about photos of people in costume as a character somehow less compromising than an officially sanctioned image of the character? Are the copyrights of public art sculptures compromised in any way when someone applies free licenses to photographs of them? If not, then what kind of protection do they have that allows individuals to make derivative art work images of them without giving permission for anyone to copy the 3D original artwork? I am wondering if the same rationale that allows Commons to host derivative images of non-free sculptures could apply to non-free character concepts.

@De728631: I understand that CC is a not transfer of copyright, but rather a license. I am asking about how Commons and CC treat derivative images of non-free works. I want to know more about the limits on third-parties which prevent them from using non-free works depicted in Commons uploads.

@Ghouston and Fæ: "I'd assume anything that's included in a CC licensed image is fair game for derived works." "releasing representative images of the character without a no derivatives constraint" I think that Commons might already be hosting works with a semi-"no-derivatives" constraint, but I am not sure how to describe that constraint. Thanks for any further thoughts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cosplay is not a loophole. We can and do delete photographs of people in costumes that appear to be obvious representations of copyrighted characters and the 'focus' is on that character (i.e. a general photo of a cosplay party may have a Batman in it, yet a close-up of someone wearing official film merchandise costume is likely to be deleted). We do not systematically delete all of them, however that is not proof of a new interpretation of either de minimis or derived works policies, and in fact if you track down some examples which buck the policies then they are highly likely to end up getting deleted. If you wish to push harder for better definitions, I suggest you work on a casebook of past DRs and example kept/deleted images that show the boundaries of how the decision is made.

Reading this back, I know it does not hit your copyright issue, but I feel that discussion would make more sense when citing specific cases to illustrate how copyright law fits or does not fit with real life implementation. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: Here is an example. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay presents a fan dressed as the character Captain Jack Sparrow. We have many such photos labeled as being of the character in Category:Jack Sparrow. My question is whether there is any difference about these cases:

1. a fan at a comic convention dresses as a character. They are photographed and the copyright holder of the photo uploads it to Commons.
2. the actor who played the character goes to a comic convention dressed as the character and portraying the character. They are photographed and the copyright holder of the photo uploads it to Commons.
3. The movie producers who hold the copyright to the character apply a CC free license to photographs of the character. They wish to share those photos in Commons, but they do not wish to give blanket permission for anyone to put their character into movies.

I expect that there is no misunderstanding that Commons intentionally and thoughtfully hosts large categories intended to only hold derivatives of non-free works. What I do not see is why it seems to be allowed that if someone other than the copyright holder does this, then consensus here is that free license only applies to the image, but if the copyright holder releases photos of their own work, then somehow that is imagined to be a release of much more than just images. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The example of someone looking like Jack Sparrow is not a good one. Braided hair, a bit of kohl and a pirate's hat are not elements that are under an obvious copyright. Something like close-ups of someone wearing a Darth Vader or Batman mask, made on license from the film production company, would be more interesting as a prior copyright case. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fæ It might not be most interesting case to discuss but I am asking for a particular reason and not for the sake of sorting Commons rules. The characters in the comic wear everyday clothing, like Homer Simpon's collar shirt and jeans. Whatever the case, I think enough has been said to establish that Commons has no ready system for addressing a media donation of this sort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The freedom of panorama rules I've seen just say that making and publishing a photograph doesn't infringe the copyright of the object. They don't imply that the copyright ceases to exist or that arbitrary derived works are allowed, such as making some photos of a sculpture and deriving a new sculpture from them. FoP on Commons is an exception to the usual rule that derived works must be allowed. --ghouston (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghouston Right - you have the idea. FoP images do not infringe on the copyright because outside of wiki it is not normal to assume that photographers need to apply a free license to their photo and additionally get free licenses for everything in their photo. The FoP laws are designed for photographers, not to imagine that subject matter of images should have the same licensing as the image itself, which is what Commons does. The reason why FoP images in Commons do not infringe on the copyright of the art they depict is because they are images with free licenses depicting nonfree content. FoP is only about granting a free license for anyone to make derivative photos of nonfree work, and not to force nonfree work to become free.

When Commons hosts images which include incidental non-free content, there is a Commons:De minimis tag on the file noting the small amount of nonfree content. But when the subject matter of an image is nonfree content as with all the FoP images, there is no tag for that. There should be.

By the same rationale that non-free content gets in with an FoP exception, I am asking how copyright holders can post images of their character concepts in Commons and similarly note that the characters are nonfree even if the image is. We allow this for costumes and cosplay of those same characters, and if noncopyright holders can upload character images, then what path is there for the copyright holders to do the same while asserting that the character concepts nonfree? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly a complex issue, but I think we should at least start by comparing like to like and focus on illustrations. File:Dojikko.png and File:Wizard of oz 5.jpg are permissible illustrated characters here. Even if Niabot has various works starring the characters in Dojikko that he hasn't released freely, what's in the free licensed work uploaded to Commons is free for us to use. Likewise, while many Oz works are still under copyright, you can do anything you want with the characters in that illustration as long as you don't copy the copyrighted works. Character copyright is a hairy and unclear mess, and I don't think it should exist (you didn't infringe on the character Superman's copyright, you infringed on the copyrights of Action Comics #1 and #23, etc.), so I'm not sure how a court would rule on it. But if DC Comics releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SupermanRoss.png as a free image, then I don't think it really Free unless we can make various works about what we see in that image, even if we are still bound not to infringe on parts of Action Comics #1, etc., except where they're part of the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

FoP in most countries where it exists, can only apply to fixed works. This does not apply to the examples given. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Enough has been said to satisfy me. My conclusion for now is that Commons has a challenging relationship with nonfree works and that innovation in this space, if it can be done, will only be done by establishing new norms. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Radiodjerikstonehvny

User:Radiodjerikstonehvny has uploaded quite a number of files of flags of US cities as "own work" or PD when it is not clear that either is really the case. It's highly unlikely that files such as File:Flag of Greenwich, Connecticut.jpg and File:Flag of Stamford, Connecticut.jpg were created by the uploader, and unlike the States of California and Florida, I don't believe en:Connecticut, en:New Jersey have similar copyright rules when it comes to governmental works. In addition to licensing things as "own work", there is also PD claims for File:Flag of Bergen County, New Jersey.jpg, File:Flag of Essex County, NJ.jpg and File:Flag of Warren County, New Jersey.jpg which seem a bit off base and might indicate that this particular user is not familiar at all with COM:PD. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Henrietta Lacks

On the Flickr account of the Oregon State University, en:File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg is licensed as CC-BY-SA (see here). Is that license valid? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Metrónomo I say no, because of conflicting information. The metadata of that file suggests that the copyright holder is the The Henrietta Lacks Foundation, so they would be the ones who would need to grant a license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Iraqi Football Association's Official Logo.png

Would someone numbs taking a look at the licensing of this logo and checking if it's OK for Commons? The copyright license chosen seems to be referring to items 50 or more years old, but this logo seems more recent than that. Also, it's not clear how the copyright laws of countries such as Iraq mesh with COM:L. Can Commons accept a file which might still be under copyright in its country of origin? If there's a more suitable license for this, please advise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Iraq Football Association, the organisation was founded in 1948, so it's entirely possible that the logo is older than 50 years. De728631 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: . I agree that the organization itself might be that old, but I'm not sure if this particular logo is that old. It was originally uploaded as non-free content to English Wikipedia as en:File:Iraq football association.png, and appears to have only been used since 21 May 2016. Prior to that en:File:Iraq FA (logo).jpg and another en:File:Iraq football association.png where used. It also looks from this version of the Wikipedia article that there there was a previous logo. The earliest I can find the Commons logo being used online is August 2012. It appears that the Iraq Football Association changed web address and used to use iraqfootball.org. The earliest version of that which I could find is from October 2005 and it seems to show a slightly different logo being used. If any of that's good enough to confirm this as PD, then fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You might be on to something there. I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraqi Football Association's Official Logo.png so let's see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

US Court Cases

Two things I noticed on the files in Category:State of Washington v. Trump and want to clarify:
1. Are the filings from the states (like this one) in the public domain? They aren't from the Federal Government, so I believe {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply.
2. On {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}}, it says that "Filings by parties are copyrighted (except for filings by the United States government, which should be tagged with {{PD-USgov}})". However, shouldn't they be tagged with {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} instead, since the Department of Justice would be the one making the filings? Elisfkc (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Probably not, technically. They are public record of course, and there is probably very little use of them which could be construed as a copyright violation, but there may be a theoretical use which is problematic.

So, nominate for deletion? Elisfkc (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated the non-Federal Government filings for deletion. Elisfkc (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Maybe. PD-USGov vs PD-USGov-DOJ is mainly a difference of categorization (it will file into a subcategory), and is not any different legally -- it is the same rationale for PD status. On the other hand, many parts of the federal government, such as regulatory bodies like the FCC, FTC, Department of Transportation, etc., can also be parties to lawsuits, and those are outside the Justice Department. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I understand that, I just think that the template should be changed to say PD-USGov-DOJ. Elisfkc (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that a large percentage of government filings will not be by the DOJ. Maybe even most. So it's not really appropriate to be specific, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Ok. Are these ones good to change to DOJ? Elisfkc (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• How are all these text files within COM:SCOPE?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I guess because they are educational? I understand having some of them, but I'm also not sure why all of them are there. Elisfkc (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source PDFs which are transcribable are within scope for Wikisource. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense as a location for these than for Commons. Elisfkc (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, we host them on Commons. They host the transcriptions. That is explicitly laid out in COM:SCOPE. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Elisfkc (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate some, Wikisource projects are per-language -- but different languages can use the same source document to make translations. Also I think many of those projects simply disallow local media uploads to avoid copyvio issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Main transmission route and event timeline.tif

This file uploaded by Myunghanmd (their only contribution) is from http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h3403/rr, and is tagged as CC-BY-SA-4.0 on the commons page, but on the BMJ page, there is no mention of that licence, and the site's copyright notice at the bottom of the page just says "Copyright © 2017 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd". Is this allowed on commons? Or should this be deleted or tagged with {{No permission since}} or something? Thanks. Seagull123 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not seen the image on that page. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I do: at the bottom, immediately above the blue page footer. I don’t see any evidence of a free licence, though. I note the uploader’s name resembles that of the author, Dr. Myung-Han Hyun, but given the publication elsewhere we should get it confirmed through OTRS.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pet Shop Boys - Bilingual.jpg

Is the album cover of Bilingual by Pet Shop Boys free in the UK? It's uploaded as File:Pet Shop Boys - Bilingual.jpg, and there is File:Pet Shop Boys - Bilingual.png. I can't put one or both of them up for deletion yet. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The threshold of originality is low in UK. So, they may be copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks okay for Commons based on the history of similar DRs that resulted in keep decisions on UK logos. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 and Fæ: Shall I put the image up for deletion then? Seems like a split decision. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to. There is always an element of judgement call for whether very simple artwork has sufficient creativity for copyright. However no volunteer is required to flag marginal images or take action, so I would move on unless this might make a useful test case. --Fæ (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about File:Aaron lopresti.jpg

Is the copyright information given for this image on the up and up? The source is given as "Aaron Lopresti himself", but the uploader is someone calling themselves "Duckgirl". Is this permissable? Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that the uploader and Lopresti are the same person because there's no requirement that you have to use your real name as your username. It's also just as possible that the uploader is not Lopresti and just found the photo somewhere online such as here or here. Generally, the photographer is considered to hold the copyright on photos. So, unless the uploader and the photographer are the same or there's been a copyright transfer agreement, the photographer needs to agree to license the photo per COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Since the photo can be seen online attributed to a Greg Preston and there is no EXIF date provided for the photo, I've tagged the file with {{Npd}} because this will give the uploader the opportunity to verify that they hold the copyright over the photo. If they are unable to do so, the file will be deleted for not having proper permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for information about images find on de.wiki

Hi all, I'm a user on the italian wikipedia, I would like to ask here, if there is a way (now or in the future) if images like de:Datei:Kranjska Gora.png or the coat of arm of this page(s) de:Gorenjska (Statistische Region) can be upload here on commons. Thanks in advance --.snoopy. 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

These coats of arms are public domain in Germany but it is less clear if they are in public domain in USA as well. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

it's not clear if we can upload on it.wiki too...--.snoopy. 09:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Charles_Alexis_Gérard

I was alerted to these by ticket:2017022010004904, which focused on File:Книга Систима, или Состояние мухаммеданския религии 2.jpg. Apparently Europeana (quoted Source and Author) had never heard of it. Most of these images are very old, but the source/author is often very dubious. Should we edit them to unknown? and then use a PD template for very old works? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If the author / source really are unknown, then sure. We don't need a source if the copyright has obviously long expired. I would change the author of File:Книга Систима, или Состояние мухаммеданския религии 2.jpg for sure, though it's obviously PD-old-100-1923. There is an author for that one at the bottom right (Zubon? Zubop?) but copyright has expired either way. For source... it sure appears that Europeana has it at http://www.europeana.eu/portal/en/record/92004/BibliographicResource_2000059200452.html . Doing spot checks, the sources on those uploads look reasonable to me, though the author fields may be off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by User:MissGao2002

File:Smog Free Project Beijing.jpg and File:1DaanRoosegaarde credit Willem de Kam.jpg were both uploaded under a CC 4.0 license by User:MissGao2002. It's seems that permission of the photographer is needed in each case, but the files are attributed to different individuals. Obviously, the uploader cannot be both individuals, so I'm sure whether just one or both of the files should be tagged with {{Npd}}. Although the "Project Beijing" photo shows 3D work of art, it's probably OK per FOP for the PRC, so all that needs to be resolved is the photo's copyright. Anyway, any suggestions on how to best proceed here would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Tagged. Yann (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

License for no restrictions photo in UK

I found a photo I'd like to upload here. It is marked "usage restrictions none" so I think it is PD but am not sure. If it is usable on commons, what license tag(s) do I need to use? Thank you. HalfGig (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this file is not explicitly PD. "Usage" may not include the making of derivatives which is required at Commons. What we need to know is the name of the photographer and their personal confirmation that this photo was released into the public domain. Maybe you could ask the contact person mentioned on that website if he can help you with these details. De728631 (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I will email him. HalfGig (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "no restrictions" means anyone can use it, but copyright is retained all the same, unless the owner chooses to release it with a CC-by-SA licence or equivalent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed the contact. My guess is that the photographer is the person who discovered this species, Professor Mario Vallejo-Marin of Univ. of Stirling. He or the University are likely the copyright holder. I'll let you know what they say. HalfGig (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The contact on the webpage is a dead email address. But I knew the photo was taken by Vallejo-Marin and emailed him. He was happy to release it under CC4!! I'll be processing it. HalfGig talk 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

all images of public-domain artworks in the Museum's collection are now under the CC0

see [2], [3], about 375,000 images (include photos of 3D art, see [4])--shizhao (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For the Commons upload project refer to https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/07/the-met-public-art-creative-commons/ --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Amsterdam Metro logo

It doesn't seem to me that the user who uploaded this image owns the copyright of it: File:Amsterdam metro logo.svg. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is {{Pd-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Duty calls.png

Could someone please verify the copyright status of this xkcd comic? I know Randall Munroe has released a few of his works under a free license, but the source page doesn't mention anything about permissions. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The source page actually says it’s under a CC-BY-NC licence, which is not allowed here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. Tagged for speedy deletion as a probable copyvio. (19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC))

Photos of paintings

Hello, I would like to ask some questions about licensing. I'm not sure if this is a good place to ask such questions, so I'll ask one question, and if you think it's a good idea to continue here, I'll keep asking some other questions. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that I'm a painter based in USA.

• I made a painting and, before selling it, I made a photo with it. If I want to publish the photo on my website or to upload it on Wikimedia Commons, do I need the permission from the new owner of my work?Thanks. Cultura211 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello there. This is the right place for copyright inquiries. If you are the original painter based in the USA, your image is copyrighted to you, and only you. In the US, copyright can only be transferred if you are someone's employee or if the painting was specially ordered or commissioned by your customer, and if both of you expressly agree to such transfer of copyright in a written document. So if you just painted a work and then choose to publish it, the copyright will remain with you and anybody else will need your permission to do anything with your painting. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed (it's similar in Europe, by the way) - even the new owner of the original painting can't publish it without your permission, unless you have also explicitly transferred the copyright (or exclusive rights of use) of your work to him. Per default, you as the creator of the work retain all rights. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • did you make the painting before 1923? did you make the painting before 1978 without a copyright notice? have you been dead 70 years? is your painting in a museum collection with a big (c) on it? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind answers. What happens with the works sold to museums? If a newspaper would like to show the inside of a museum and to take photos with various works there, it looks like a complicated job - to ask for permission from all the painters who sold their works to the museum. Or maybe sometimes the museums make a deal with the painters so they (the museums) get the permission to publish photos with the works without having to ask the authors? Cultura211 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cultura211,

Newspapers, and medias in general, usually have special exemption on copyright. The details vary from country to country. It is called fair use in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Many countries allow certain uses of works without getting permission -- in the U.S. it is called "fair use", in the UK (and other countries inheriting its laws) "fair dealing", and the rest typically have a list of permitted uses in their copyright laws. Many common uses may fall under that. Educational and news-reporting institutions often have some wider allowances, and using a photo of such a work when selling it (or maybe advertising an exhibition) would usually be OK. Those are all attempts to balance some "normal" usage, against say a museum selling postcards of a painting when they don't own the copyright and such permission was not otherwise given. In most cases... it's best to have an explicit agreement on such things (e.g. a contract) when the sale is made -- that can avoid complications of an act being legal in one country, but not another, etc. But in general, ownership of an object does not mean you own the copyright (and also does not imply any rights over photos of that object, copyrightable or not). In the past, certain transfers (say of photograph negatives) may have been considered an implicit transfer of the copyright as well, but since 1978 U.S. copyright law has said that any copyright transfers must be explicit (i.e. in writing). 17 USC 204. So, for your original example, if you sold both the copyright and the painting to the museum, you'd have to get permission from the museum to upload the photo here, most likely. You could use the photo if it falls under fair use (which in the U.S. would likely cover most non-commercial uses), but uses outside of fair use (such as uploading here) you'd have to get permission. If you just sold the painting, but not the copyright, then the museum should normally have no say over the photograph -- you still own the copyright of the painting, and also the photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

An example of special exceptions in copyright law for museums (public collections) is Switzerland's URG Art. 26: "A work forming part of a collection accessible to the public may be reproduced in a catalogue issued by the administrators of the collection; the same rule applies to the publication of exhibition and auction catalogues". Gestumblindi (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That was very useful, thanks for the kind answers. Cultura211 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Images from the US Naval History and Heritage Command

During a couple of my recent GANs, I got licensing questions about pictures that I used from this organization. The main page of the NHHC photography collection states: "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." I've been using PD-USGov-Military-Navy as I suspect that some portion of these were taken by naval attachés or other military photographers, but some of those that I've seen there appear to be commercial photographs that were probably purchased by naval personnel, especially the foreign warships. And others may well have been given to the navy by the RN or other organizations.

So I'm wondering if these photos should use their own license using the language from the NHHC website (kinda like PD-Bain) and stating that the license applies worldwide (it's impossible at this remove to know if any particular photos were purchased or made by naval personnel so the worldwide provisions of PD-USGov-Military-Navy would apply). This would preempt the sorts of questions that I've been getting about their copyright status. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A portion of those images were donated by individuals -- those, while not strictly PD-USGov, may very well be OK -- if copyright was transferred along with the donation, and the Navy then makes them public domain (which could well apply here), may as well just use the PD-USGov. Any that were donated before 1989 were likely PD-US-no_notice anyways. For foreign vessels, it could be harder, though US Navy personnel may still have taken them (joint project between navies, or even surreptitious spying). For material which was given by other navies, or copies that were simply obtained by the Navy, that would be the hardest -- they could be PD in the U.S., but may not be PD in the country of origin. Those cases probably would need a different license tag, or be deleted. But, the NHHC website does say that images not in the public domain should be marked on the image description itself ("those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description"), which indicates they have done some copyright vetting before putting the images up, so in most cases it should not be an issue unless there are such notes in the image description. The vast majority are PD-USGov-Military-Navy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

a lot of these are taken from NARA navy and army signal corps. their provenance and metadata sucks. we will have to research high resolution at NARA. you will never preempt the doubt of deletionists no matter how much leg work we do. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I knew the lack of provenance would be a PITA, but I had hoped that the vetting by the NHHC would be enough to allow for a special tag just for their images, to forestall questions like what's a USN sailor doing in the middle of the North Sea in 1915, photographing Royal Navy battleship squadrons before the US entered WWI? At any rate, I've only just today discovered a NHHC template that reproduces the copyright statement from the website, so that should help keep the uproar down to a minimum. Now if I could only figure out a way to do the same for Imperial Russian ships!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The template mentioned is quite new...I've been working on uploading NHHC images (on and off) for a few months now. I've been working on the general assumption that the NHHC PD assertions are reliable... while most images are unattributed, I've found no obviously commercial material that did not predate 1923. In the few cases were attributed material might have a pma problem (such as en:Robert Enrique Muller its generally determinable that the person was an employee. - Revent^talk 12:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

PD-IDGov

Hi, I am a bit doubtful about the use of {{PD-IDGov}} here: Special:Contributions/Achmadmaulanaibr. Could someone check please? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Could someone confirm that these are OK? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

20050304 TRANSPLANT 24 - Poster.jpg

Does this file fall in COM:ADVERT? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have nominated it for deletion. Wikicology (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Foto eines Zeitungsberiichts

Kann ich ein Foto eines Zeitungsartikel von 1978 als Beleg für eine Aussage in Wikipedia Hochlagen ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumtau (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nein, das geht leider nicht. Der Text des Artikels und eventuell enthaltene Fotos sind noch urheberrechtlich geschützt und dürfen nicht ohne Erlaubnis der Autoren wiederverwendet werden. Was Du machen kannst, ist den Zeitungsartikel als solches zu zitieren: "Autor, Titel, Zeitung, Seitennummer, Datum." Dazu kannst Du dann noch ein kurzes Textzitat abschreiben und in die Wikipedia einfügen, aber abfotografieren geht nicht. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: De728631 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Epitomeofmykehurley.jpg

Is OTRS permission needed for this image? The file comes from this tweet and it appears that the account holder is agreeing to a free license here. However, no specific license is specified in the declaration and I'm not sure if " I grant this image ©-free" is a definitive enough statement for Commons. It's certainly not as specific and detailed as COM:OTRS#E-mail template for release of rights to a file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

With both hands in use, Jeremy Burge obviously did not take this image himself, so he is not in a position to waive the copyright. Only the original photographer could do that. Nominated for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: I don't think Burge is the person depicted in the photo. I believe that is someone named en:Myke Hurley. The photo came from Burge's Twitter account, so it seems possible that he took the photo himself. My concern was whether his tweet is sufficient enough of a declaration of consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

COM:TOO#Germany issue: Borussia Dortmund logo

Drawing attention to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borussia Dortmund.png. --XXN, 23:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• A ~similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inter Mailand.svg‎ - a high-use file (>100) transferred from de.wp. --XXN, 10:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nigerian naira banknotes

Looking for some help assessing the copyright of the w:Nigerian naira banknote. It's not listed at Commons:Currency and there are no examples or talk page notices at Category:Money of Nigeria. Central bank's website is http://www.cbn.gov.ng/ czar 05:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on the site suggests that it's free, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Nigeria says that government works in general are non-free. So for anything published 70 years ago or less, it's not looking good. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright on logo of ceased organization

I uploaded a letter and an envelope from Radio Moscow (both showing the logos). The organization ceased in the '90s, it was state-owned (USSR). The state does not exist anymore. How about the copy rights ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjhufken (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 February 2017‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Russia and former Soviet Union. The copyright laws of the Soviet Union's successor states still apply to Soviet-era works. clpo13_(talk) 22:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Some problem in licence

Let it to be brought to the notice that Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk · contribs) has some uploaded files which I find them on https://marathibhasha.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Home/index.aspx# which links to a YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2KvmdrdBk&feature=youtu.be There is no creative Commons license on the youtube videos as well as other videos have Maharashtra government watermark on them. Do assist whether to delete such files under COM:SD or COM:DEL or keep them under any other license --Tiven2240 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Files tagged, user warned. Yann (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vintage sci-fi poster.jpg

Could someone familiar with comics take a look at File:Vintage sci-fi poster.jpg? The claimed license is clearly false, but depending on the publication details it may well be {{PD-US-no notice}} or so on. The presence of the image in many poster reprint stores suggests it is likely PD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

When was it published? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

According to fr:Captain Future, it was in 1946. De728631 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a poster, it's the cover of the winter 1946 issue (Volume 13 No. 1) issue of Startling Stories. Originally registered in October 1945, B669345, and renewed by CBS in 1973, R556894. Seems like it would be under copyright unless we can find solid evidence the cover was actually distributed as a poster in that old time frame. If used as a modern poster, that doesn't change the copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

PD-US-not renewed and PD-US-no notice

1. In USA, how I can check if "copyright was not renewed". Is there is some site I can check it? what it's mean "renewed". how can copyright on photo renewed or how can copyright on book renewed

2. How I check "a copyright notice", Is there is a site that I can check it?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.104.135.2 (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Older U.S. law required a work to be renewed in the 28th year of its copyright, by filing a renewal with the U.S. Copyright Office. For works originally published 1953 or later (and before 1964, as the requirement ended in 1992), the records will be online at www.copyright.gov . For works published earlier, you'd have to search the printed copyright catalogs. They are online at UPenn, but searching is still tedious, and you have to know the names (copyright owners) to search for. If it's just a book you are looking for, Stanford has a searchable database. You may need to search on multiple names, as anyone with a renewal interest in the copyright could file, which could be the corporation, or someone they sold partial rights to, the original author, etc. Secondly, photos are particularly difficult -- while not many were renewed, the renewal could also be in the form of a book renewal if the photo was in book renewed by the same copyright owner that same year, or similarly part of a periodical (magazine), and that sort of thing, so you may need to look in multiple sections of the catalogs (not just the artwork/photograph sections). But, it is at least possible to do. If you do claim lack of renewal, it is best to list the names you searched for. If you can find an original registration (which could be done at any time in the 28 years, so it could be in any of the catalogs, though usually the year of publication) that can actually help, as the copyright registration number would then make it much easier to search for the renewal. Those were rarely done for individual photos though. If the photo was first published as part of a book or magazine, look for a renewal of that book or magazine.

2. Copyright notice needed to be on all published copies. Copyright owners did not need to register a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office, but they did need to have a visible copyright notice. For photos, this can often be difficult though -- if a particular copy of a photo was not distributed, lack of notice on that particular copy means nothing. And if that photo was distributed along with other materials as a group, copyright notice could be anywhere in those materials. For a book, the notice needed to be around the title page at the front. There is no site to check -- normally you can just check on the physical object itself. But, you have to know something of the publication status of that object, which can be difficult for photographs. Something like a publicity photo with obvious markings to show that it was actually distributed before 1964 (say one which documents a copyright owner, then a dated stamp of a separate entity like a newspaper showing that copy was distributed) are the best bets. If a photo was part of a larger work, the copyright notice could be anywhere in that work (even one notice on a magazine by default protected all works in that magazine). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

here is the copyright office online search for after 1978 http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

here is the hathi trust copyright review https://www.hathitrust.org/copyright-review

here is the how to manual https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00270134e;view=1up;seq=3 you have to go through the pdfs one year at a time Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: That copy of Circular 22 is rather out of date (it's from 1989). There have been important changes since (the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, in particular). The current version is at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf. - Revent^talk 04:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For collective works, such as magazines, the information at COM:IC#Advertisements indicates that third-party advertisements that were of US origin and that were incorporated into a collective work would have to have their own copyright notice on the advertisement itself even if the collective work had a copyright notice. (This is an exception to the rule where the copyright notice for a collective work covers all of the preexisting works that are incorporated into the collective work.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The copyright issue with 3D features in photos?

Have I understood correctly that the issue with 3D features (such as a frame) in photographic reproductions of old (definitely PD) artworks is that, unlike photos of a purely 2D object, there is independent copyright in the photo? Or, put another way, would I be right to assume that the photographer of such an artwork would be able to upload it here under their choice of license, much like anyone can upload photos of purely 2D artwork under Bridgeman v. Corel? And to be clear, I'm talking about cases along the lines of a ca. 1800 painting that happens to be in an elaborate frame, or where the frame has some independent interest such that cropping it out would not be desirable.

Or is there some other property of these and relevant copyright law that make them problematic? Are they, for instance, considered to be sculptures and covered by some more onerous copyright term than the painting they frame (in general terms, not extremes where the painting is effectively incidental to a room-sized actual sculpture or some such)? --Xover (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is not the design of the frame, but as soon as the frame is depicted, it becomes the photographer's choice of how much they show of it, which angle to choose for the shot etc. These considerations create a new copyright independent of the out-of-copyright artwork inside the frame as opposed to a faithful photographic copy of the artwork as such. So yes, photos with a picture frame can be uploaded with a license of the uploader's choice, even if the main subject is PD. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I assume you meant "can't be uploaded"? But in my hypothetical here the person doing the uploading is the person taking the photo. For instance, if I took a photo of an old PD artwork that includes the picture frame. My understanding is that the copyrights to care about are the one for the painting (which is expired), and the one in the photo (which, in this case, I would hold), and thus I would be able to upload the photo under a free license. Have I misunderstood something? --Xover (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It depends on if the frame itself is copyrightably original, and how old it is. Many old works have been placed in modern frames... the 'safe' answer is to simply crop the frame before uploading unless it's known to be old. - Revent^talk

Ok, so there is a separate copyright in the picture frame? Is this considered equivalent to a sculpture, or would it be the same term as a painting (amended, of course, to account for the fact that the painting and the frame probably have separate creators)? What would be the term one would have to check it against? Let's say we're reasonably sure both the painting and its frame were created in 1800, and I am the photographer; would it then be reasonable to assume both painting and frame are PD, and I hold the copyright for the photo, so I could upload that photo under a free license? I would also guess that in most cases the creator of the frame would not be possible to determine, and so it would, for a lot of cases, have to be treated as an anonymous work; and similarly that a possible separate (typically later) creation date for the frame would be hard to determine, so that absent contrary evidence it would be reasonable to use the date of the picture as a de facto date for the frame? Further, is there anywhere any guidance on determining a "threshold of originality" for something like a picture frame? Surely not all picture frames meet whatever that threshold is, no matter how restrictive it might be? Or is that sufficiently uncharted waters (I'm guessing Bridgeman v. Corel didn't deal with this directly) that in practice it doesn't pertain where Commons is concerned? I'm thinking here of completely plain wooden frames, or just a simple cardboard square with a cutout in the middle for the artwork, as one simply obvious case of "below threshold of originality"; with increasing complexity in the determination relative to increasingly elaborate frames. How would one tag such a photo? Three separate tags, for each of the separate copyrights in the mix? --Xover (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The frame could be a work of art, depending on the country and the frame. Unless it's clearly an artistic frame (cherubs or whatever), I'd not worry about it. I think the US would count most frames as functional and not copyrightable and pretty much any use of a photo of a painting with an incidental frame as fair use of the frame. Other countries have stricter rules, but I don't think it's something that we should take too much time worrying about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most frames are not copyrightable... the most likely case where it would be a concern is where some very old, famous painting was placed much later into a modern frame that is intended to be 'in the style of' it's period... I'm thinking of something like the Mona Lisa, though it's 'modern' frame is old enough to be PD at this point (it's from 1909). I rather suspect that in the few cases where that would arise, art scholars or museum descriptions would note that the frame was modern. - Revent^talk 04:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

there is no case law, so you are left with the empty theorizing on commons. museums care so much about frame copyright, that they do not document the age or provenance of frames, except in obscure curatorial case studies. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not that obscure... see http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/learn-about-art/frame-in-focus-leonardos-virgin-of-the-rocks for example. Portions of the frame are a modern artistic work, 'in the style of' period frames. - Revent^talk 04:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

you made my point - an exhibition about frames [5] and no information in general about all the other frames on view. i.e. "with its plain frame. ... The picture was reframed and installed in the chapel in 1603" [6] and no information in the metadata [7]. so if you cared, you could do no research about frames in general, you would have to email every museum about each artwork on display. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of issues surrounding picture frames

I'll attempt a summary of the above thread.

• For a photographic reproduction of a typical painting that includes the frame in the photo, there are three copyrights in play: the artist of the painting, the photographer making the reproduction, and the artist that created the frame for the painting.
• The copyright issues for the painting itself and for the photographic reproduction are both well illuminated elsewhere in documentation and policy, and is not affected by anything specific to this thread.
  • If you take the photo yourself, you are free to license the photograph as such under any license you please, including the Commons-compatible ones.
  • The photographer, if it is not you, also obviously has this right, and can upload it here under a free license; or follow the OTRS procedure; or release it elsewhere (Flickr, say, or their own website) under a free license and we can reupload it here under that license.
  • A photograph of a painting that includes the frame does not fall under the copyright exception for "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art" (i.e. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp), and so copyright status of the photo itself must be determined.
• If the creator of the frame or the "publication" date (date frame was added to the painting) is known, the copyright assessment would be as for any other artwork (like the painting, say) only with the dates specific for the frame.
• For the frame, both the date of creation / "publication" and the artist will often or even in most cases be unknown. In these cases it is usually reasonable to assume the frame has a copyright date identical to the framed painting, and to use the copyright term for anonymous works in the relevant jurisdictions (US + country of origin).
  • Reasonable efforts must be made to ascertain the artist's identity and the relevant dates in order for treating it as an anonymous work with priority equal to the painting to be defensible.
  • Existence of any specific information about the frame obviously means that information should be taken into account.
• Picture frames, along with most other things, must meet a "threshold of originality" in order for it to be afforded copyright protection.
  • For very simple most picture frames, as primarily "useful articles" (in the sense "utilitarian") —like plain square pine planks, with maybe a coat of paint or varnish, say—this threshold is extremely unlikely to be met.
  • The more elaborate the frame, the more likely it is to meet the threshold, and the more complex a copyright assessment would be.
  • The central issue for copyrightability of picture frames is the presence of a "conceptually separable" original work; some original design that can be envisioned separate from the picture frame, similarly to how the picture could be removed from its frame. How elaborate, intricate, or labor-intensive the picture frame itself is, is not a material fact in the assessment.
  • There is no known case law or very little precedent to help determine this specifically for picture frames, so any such assessment should err on the conservative side.
  • Whether the Commons community will accept a "threshold of originality" test for picture frames is not yet determined (current practice seems to be to delete pictures including frames, or to crop the picture to omit the frame).

Is that a fair summary? Did I get anything wrong, or leave anything out? Is there some suitable place this could be put so the next guy maybe doesn't have to ask here to find these answers? Or am I the only nerd obsessive enough to even care about this issue? ;) ----Xover (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC) [Edited to reflect the discussion below. Insertions and deletions are marked using styled ins and del elements. --Xover (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) ]

@Xover: I think you missed something. Disclaimer: IANAL, all following is "as far as I understand". If the photograph is a "faithful reproduction" of the painting (whatever that means) WMF says that the photographer does not have any copyright – or as they put it in Template:PD-Art: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". That changes if the image contains a 3D frame. --El Grafo (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: "Faithful reproductions" are those that don't embody any copyrightable originality beyond that inherent in the underlying work... they are intended to merely depict it's actual appearance, without any creative retouching or restoration. A faithful reproduction is effectively identical to what anyone else would create given the same equipment, skill level, and opportunity. If the image has been altered (other than in purely mechanical ways such as automatic filters in image software) then it's less likely to be a faithful reproduction.

The possible copyright in a frame is something that would only very rarely be a concern... far more often, we would be concern about the copyright in a 'photo' of a frame. In the rare cases where it would matter, it would probably be noted in sources about the work, it's just something we should keep in mind. - Revent^talk 18:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: I agree, frames are rarely a problem, just mentioned them because the question was "did I leave anything out". The "problem" I have with "faithful reproduction" (but didn't want to tackle here; hence the "whatever that means") is that it's difficult to judge without having access to the original or at least having a "color checker" in the frame. We've had several discussions over at FPC, where some people were feeling the colour balance of such a reproduction was off and others disagreeing. Just have a quick look at all the different versions we have at Category:Mona Lisa – if we're being honest, they can't all be really "faithful". But I guess that's not really relevant from a copyright point of view. --El Grafo (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Basically, it ends up as a matter of considering 'intent'. Skill or 'effort expended' don't contribute to copyrightability, only originality, so if the photographer intended to merely create a depiction of the previous work, and not create a new 'original' work based on it, then there is no new copyright. How well the image actually 'faithfully' reproduces the original (a matter of skill or effort expended) becomes irrelevant. - Revent^talk 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Back when the first colorized black and white movies came out, the US Copyright Office solicited comment about whether they were copyrightable. They eventually decided that if you colorized a whole movie, it was copyrightable, but that still didn't apply to something like a photograph. Color balance isn't a factor in copyrightability in the US, at least unless a court or Congress overrides the Copyright Office. (I'd also say that the color of a non-light emitting object like a painting is incredibly complex, depending on the color of the lighting among other things. Any digital representation is going to be catching just one idealized version.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that most frames aren't copyrightable; it's a limited standardized form. If you're looking at a frame that's recognizably a piece of art in its own right, then the question might come forth, but in most cases a frame is simply not going to be a concern. As a matter of practice, on stuff where there's no case law on copyrightability, i.e. no one is even thinking about them as a copyrightable work, we shouldn't encourage thinking about them as copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is one Copyright Office Appeals case I can remember -- in this case, 26 of 28 picture frames were ruled uncopyrightable. Two of them were above the threshold. So, it is possible to copyright picture frames, but most would not qualify. Secondly, when it comes to photographs which contain picture frames, if the focus of the picture is the artwork in the frame, the frame is almost certainly "incidental" and would not cause the photograph to being derivative. The frame itself (or at least a portion of it) would have to be the focus of the photo for that to happen -- similar to the Ets-Hokin decision where a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of the label on that bottle, even if copyrightable, unless the photo is focusing on the label. So... in most cases, I don't think there needs to be much consideration of the frames in photos of artwork. Photos which focus on the frames, possibly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There was another appeals case I just ran across, this one. In that case, six picture frames were submitted, which each contained pressed flowers embedded in areas. The frames themselves were not copyrightable; the selection and arrangement of the flowers themselves (which is separable from the frame) were also uncopyrightable except for one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo, Revent, Prosfilaes, and Clindberg: Thanks for your help and your comments. I've amended the summary above (hopefully it isn't too confusing) to try to reflect the discussions above here, and the cases Carl linked to. I'd appreciate it if you could look over the amended summary and see if it looks representative and correct. If so, I would also appreciate suggestions for whether and where it might be stashed somewhere in COM:-space for the benefit of any future person with this issue. --Xover (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xover: I think that you've described it pretty well. Unfortunately, 'conceptual separability' always comes down to a judgement call, since it's ill-defined (different courts apply slightly different standards). IMO, the reasonable line to use is basically if professionals themselves have discussed the particular frame as a 'work of art' in it's own right... something that is not going to apply to the vast majority of frames, and mostly to very old ones. It's things like this... which is the original frame from the late 1600s, and so PD anyhow. - Revent^talk 13:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Flickr photo of Jen Wang and Cory Doctorow

Could this photo (or a cropped version of the photo) be uploaded to Commons? The photo was uploaded on Cory Doctorow's Flickr stream under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license, but it is not clear that Doctorow is the copyright holder since he appears in the photo and the photo's metadata indicates that the photo was taken with a smartphone. --Gazebo (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a surprise. Cory Doctorow is very knowledgeable about copyright and things -as he writes about it and is a published author to boot... This seems to have past below his omnidirectional radar. Email him for confirmation! We don't normally give out email address but as CR has declared he can cope with his email address being publicly available, Why I have a public email address. Here it is : >doctorowATcraphoundDOTcom<. We wait with baited breath as to where things got confused. It must be an oversight. Included this link: [8] so that he can instantly understand the context of your email.--Aspro (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

after a certain point commons is going to have to recognize that people who volunteer to photo with someone else's phone are waiving rights, and it is not impossible that timer could not have been used - no one else cares, as in this case. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently uploaded a photo of Jen Wang that I took, and there are already multiple photos of Cory Doctorow on Commons, so the uncertainty over the licensing of the Flickr photo should be less of a concern than it was previously. At the same time, if anyone else wants to contact Cory Doctorow regarding the licensing of the Flickr photo, it might be useful, given that the photo is currently marked as CC BY-SA. --Gazebo (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)