Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05

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

Uploads by Pootymalooty

All of the files uploaded by Special:Contributions/Pootymalooty seem to clearly violate COM:FU. They were probably uploaded in good faith based upon a misunderstanding or "own work". I've tagged one of the files with {{Logo}}, but I'm wondering if there's a way to tag all the files as a group instead of individually tagging each. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pootymalooty. Yann (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at these Yann. Unfortunately, the message I left on their user talk and the DR you started is has not deterred Pootymalooty from continuing to upload possible fair use logos as own work. Is there any typetime of "user warning" message that can be added to their user talk page. Some of these may be simple enough to be PD logos or may be duplicats of already existing Commons files, but they certainly are not "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to change "time" to "type". -- 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)]
✓ Done Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ruthven (msg) 14:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of picture wants to remain anonymous

I have a source who wants to remain anonymous. He has taken a picture that he wants to release as public domain. There is no reason to believe the picture infringes anyones rights. How can I help him do that? --Prosaole (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way is OTRS. Any communication with OTRS remains confidential. Jcb (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
He can set up an account on Commons and release the photograph, or do the same thing on Flickr and choose the appropriate license, then you could upload the file here. No organization guarantees that records held on the OTRS database will never be made public, and no claim for damages would be possible if it happens. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This would work only if the files were never previously published elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The same issue exists with OTRS, but with the added problem of zero transparency, so mistakes are rarely discovered. Even worse, OTRS volunteers have no standard methods of checking an image, such as a simple Google image search, nor verification of an email domain. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: There is no "standard", but usually it is done that way: the email address should be linked to the "source" in some way. Your source, who wants to release the photo under CC0 (not public domain please), can send the picture and the permission to publish it under a free license to photosubmission@wikimedia.org: in that way there is no need to set up any account, and the OTRS operator will do what is needed to check if the release is acceptable. --Ruthven (msg) 13:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree there is no standard. As for what is usual, I have no evidence for that. I'd really like to see some published evidence, as from that might come some firm requirements for verification for any volunteer handling the OTRS Commons queue. When I was an OTRS volunteer I ran domain checks and would routinely do a Google image search as the minimum. The amount of effort was a minute or two, but were I ever challenged, the records of the verification were there in the ticket history. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
If you've been an OTRS volunteer, you can understand why no evidence can be published: we are talking about private information that OTRS operators agreed not to divulgate. Going back to your initial question, it seems that even you doubt of the authenticity of your source; in that case I think that it's better to let it go. --Ruthven (msg) 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't take this the wrong way. If you read my suggestion that we publish evidence, what is being published would be the statistics of the types of verification used for tickets in the Commons queue. No confidential information need ever leave the database for that to happen. As of today, there are no statistics of this type released, nor is there any public standard for the required checks on Copyright expected from OTRS volunteers handling the OTRS Commons queue. That's not a healthy way to conduct ourselves considering how legally important it may be for our reusers to have highly reliable OTRS verification processes. --Fæ (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that we are going off topics, but to produce such statistics would be an enormous work, i.e. going through every ticket ever answered. In the future we can consider adding a checkbox, where the volunteer can select the kind of checking done (e.g. obvious from the email address, google search, official website, ID, …). About defining a "standard", that is now transmitted from mouth to ear (aka keyboard to screen), there are currently several discussions going on.
Going back to your source's donation, I still think that the best option would be 1) you to check if it's ok copyright-wise in the first place, then 2) send the request with the evidences to OTRS (e.g. to photosubmission queue). --Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of old Russian works

Hi, In this case, it is mentioned that the copyright expires in 2021. But why not in 2017, in 2019 or in 2022? The author died in 1946. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The copyright is extended for the duration of the war. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah OK. So 4 years? This should be mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Russia and former Soviet Union, in Commons:Copyright tags#Russia and former Soviet Union, and in Template:PD-Russia. Right now, it is not clear at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, by 4 years (part5 of article 1281 of the Russian civil code provided that the author worked during the War of participated in the War). Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this OK? Yann (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It is ok for Russia but I am not sure about other former parts of USSR. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What a weird privilege to give to veterans. Anyone in a war gets the term of their copyright extended for the duration of the war? I put the citation at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union because this seemed so odd and dubious that I think anyone would like a citation there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is so weird. Wartime extensions, for instance, exist in France. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Rostov-na-Donu Centralny rynok

This picture has been released with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license but there's a watermark on the picture itself with a © symbol. Is it OK for Commons or not?--Carnby (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The © symbol only means that the image is copyrighted to its author, which is true here regardless of the license. Ruslik (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Provo Flag (2015-).png

This file is being licensed as {{PD-USGov}}, but I'm not sure that is appropriate. "PD-USGov" seems to be intended to apply to works created by employees of the United States federal government, not works created by employees of individual state or municipal governments. I know that Florida and California are covered by {{PD-FLGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}} respectively, but I am not sure about works created by employees of the State of Utah or employees of municipalities located in Utah. If this type of licensing is considered acceptable for Utah, then it should be also OK for works created by employees of the other 49 states and the employees of local government organizations located in the states as well, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Provo Flag (2015-).png opened. en:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments is the reference that should be used for such issues... if it is incorrect in specific cases, we should just fix it. - Reventtalk 01:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Revent for checking on this and the link to the subnational page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Kickapoo Chiefs logo.jpg

This file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible}}, but that does not seem correct. The arrowhead imagery does not seem to be "common property" at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kickapoo Chiefs logo.jpg opened. - Reventtalk 01:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-HU-exempt}} has broken link to Hungarian copyright act of 1999

In {{PD-HU-exempt}}, as mentioned here, the current link to the Hungarian copyright act of 1999 is broken. A possible alternative is this link (it appears that some of the wording in the provisions in the PDF is different from the wording in the template.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you should go and update the link. As to the different wordings, it can be caused by different translations. Ruslik (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nail & Gear.svg

Can it be assumed that the file has been licensed as {{CC0}} given the source link provided for the file or it OTRS verification required? Moreover, the ountry of origin appears to be the UK, so I'm not sure this would be below COM:TOO#United Kingdom to be converted to PD like File:Hello Internet Logo.svg being used in the same articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I can not find where in the provided link it says CC0. Ruslik (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Ruslik? Would it be acceptable to tagged this with {{Npd}} in your opinion or would that be a bit of overkill? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it would be appropriate. Ruslik (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Paintings by Dmitry Kustanovich

Is anyone able to discern whether File:Весенний ручей Кустанович.jpg, File:Рыжий питерский кот.jpg, File:Ранняя весна в Петербурге.jpg and File:Осенние березы.jpg by en:Dmitry Kustanovich have been released as {{CC-zero}}. The source website is in Russian (I think) so I cannot really read it, but it does not appear that any of the paintings shown there have been licensed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that page states that the reproductions of works of Dmitry Kustanovich shown on it are released into public domain. Ruslik (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on this Ruslik. I used Google translate on the source website, but the English was a bit awkward sounding so I wasn't sure if it was reliable. I also saw what looks like a copyright symbol at the bottom of the page, so felt it would be best to see what others thought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It is because only specific reproductions are released, not all website. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Xunta de Galicia

The Government of Galicia (Spain) has this legal notice on its website and similar ones in other subsites (e. g. this one) and I suspect this means that their images can be uploaded to Commons, as it is quite similar to the rationale of Template:Attribution-gencat.

Am I right? And if so, which steps should I take to upload such images? Should I create a custom license tag?

If you have any problem understanding Spanish, let me know. F (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's Galician, not Spanish :) But you're right, the content of xunta.gal Website is available under conditions quite similar to the rationale of Template:Attribution-gencat, even simpler as they ask to:
  • Not distort the meaning of the information.
  • Always quote the source of the information.
--Ruthven (msg) 18:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: OK. Thank you very much for the confirmation. But I'm still unsure about how to proceed. Allow me to insist — Should I create a custom license tag? F (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Petillés: Yes, I think that a custom template is the best solution, as the terms don't really match the ones of an existing license, even if they are close to CC BY. --Ruthven (msg) 17:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Thanks again! I'll do it that way. F (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheyenne Mountain High School Logo.jpg

Should this be {{PD-logo}} instead of {{PD-text}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. I changed the copyright tag. ★ Poké95 10:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Photo of Drooker Painting at Easel.jpg

Does this file need OTRS verification or is the declaration given by the uploader sufficient? The description says it has been previously published on Facebook, etc., but the subject of a photo is usually not considered to be the copyright holder of said photo; moreover, not sure how much good faith should be assumed regarding the uploader and the subject of the photo being one and the same person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the file for deletion, hoping to receive an OTRS permission from the photographer. ★ Poké95 10:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit history of files transferred from Wikipedia

File:Margam Chain Home Low Radar Station.jpg has recently been transferred from English Wikipedia to Commons. I think I edited the file summary while it was on Wikipedia, to add the coodinates and possibly other information about the subject. These edits are not shown in the Commons revision history. Has the Wikipedia revision history been lost? I'm not concerned about credit for my contributions, but I thought that authorship details were needed to comply with licensing requirements. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not preserve the edit history of the file page but only credit the upload history of the image. The Wikipedia page gets deleted in the end anyway, and the text contributions are different from the image file as such. What is transferred to Commons is really just the image, while the Wikipedia text is left over there. The backlink to the original WP page in a phrase like "The original description page was here" is also sufficient for attribution of the text page authors. This is because on Commons and Wikipedia alike, "deletion" is never a true removal of content, but the edits are simply removed from public view. They will remain cached though and are visible to admins and bureaucrats, so the attribution history is actually preserved. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I am reassured that the full revision history is somewhere, albeit not generally accessible. However, more than the image is transferred from Wikipedia. In this case the associated text including the coordinates and the scheduled ancient monument information have also been transferred from the Wikipedia page, and their attribution is different from that for the image. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
welcome to the broken file transfer process. history, and source metadata is not carried over. you would think they could make it more like a move after all this time, but there is little interest. there are hundreds of thousands of files with this problem. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me what Verbcatcher mentions here is a real problem. Someone can have made quite significant contributions, which effectively go uncredited because the only history of those contributions is hidden from everyone except for administrators of the wiki where the image was originally uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
it gets better - suppose the following edge case - an uploader to english of fair use high resolution image which is downsized by bot erasing exif and credit, is then determined to be really PD, and transferred to commons. you have no author credit, and no provenance. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I was asked on IRC by a currently blocked editor to link this Phabricator ticket here, as it's relevant to this discussion. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T140462 - Reventtalk 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am pleased to learn that an extension for this is being worked on, although I am unclear whether and when it will be rolled out. I hope that the new extension will be able to recover the histories of previously-transferred items. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: - I was the one who transferred the file (I've been copying over images of heritage sites in the UK). Kelly (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kelly: - I did not mean to criticise your actions, I was drawing attention to a problem with the tools that you presumably used. However, I apologise for not alerting you to this discussion. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Oh, I agree this is something to discuss. I'd suggest moving free files from Wikipedia over to Commons prior to modifying descriptions, as they'll all end up over here anyway. However, this does affect multiple users so a system solution would definitely be better. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Photos of Calder's "La Grande Vitesse"

Are File:Alexander Calders "La Grande Vitesse".jpg and File:LaGrandeVitesse1969.jpg OK as licensed? The photos themselves can be freely licensed, but I'm not sure if the sculpture itself can be assumed to be within the public domain. There's no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art in the US per COM:FOP#United States, and the sculpture does not seem to be old enough to be in the public domain if it was installed in 1969. Moreover, Alexander Calder dies in 1976 so I don't believe enough time has passed since his death for the copyright he held on his work to be no longer valid. Looking at Alexander Calder, it appears that the are specific conditions which need to be met for any photos of his work to be acceptable for Commons and I'm not sure these meet them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The license is published before 1978 without a copyright notice. The permissions link is the art-inventories site, which documents a signature but no copyright notice on it. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. I don't see the issue, nor why the death date of the author would matter for the copyright term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Clindberg. I only mentioned the year of Calder's death because it make reference to it on the Commons page Alexander Calder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that template is a generic one which usually applies more for non-American authors, but this is an American author, and it is only works published since 1978 which have a term based on life. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
the death date matters for berne devotees, who doubt US legacy copyright rules. the deletions have been perfunctory, except where some US editors can research the formalities. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Monument morts Servignat series

We know that FOP is not allowed in France. Considering FOP in France, should the following files be kept?

This monument is very simple: no decoration, no sculpture, so it should be {{PD-ineligible}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
No, those buildings are not PD per COM:TOO#France where we have "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works." --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you know about copyright in France? Why do you ask if you want to decide all by yourself? This quote is about copyright by the photographer. In France, copyright is attributed when the work shows the personality of its author. Not the case here. Yann (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NonFreeWiki and RFC proposal at Meta-wiki on extending Commons to non-free content

The proposed sister project, meta:NonFreeWiki, a non-free counterpart to Commons, is proposed. Currently, the majority supports this. Also, there is the ongoing RFC discussion at Meta-wiki on allowing non-free images to Commons. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, someone please help!

I'm a new user and I have been editing a page. I introduced new photos on the page, gave photo credit as required and promptly was asked if I had permission to use the photos. I have permission from two of the photographers, and I believe the other two photos reside in Getty Images. My problem is, how do I let Wiki know? The Commons page is very complicated and gives me no clear path. The person who contacted me said the photographer must give permission directly to Commons, however, without knowing the procedure to follow, and I mean step-by-step, i.e. click here, click there, I cannot direct the photographers on how to submit their permissions. I need to resolve the problem quickly as this person has a national tour coming up, and having a current Wikipedia page would greatly enhance its success.

Thank you!

P.S. I'm not even sure I'm putting this in the correct place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Fullerton (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:OTRS. In addition, if some images are Getty images, they are probably can not be used without a permission from Getty. Ruslik (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose Getty does not own the copyrights, but just has a right to license the images on standard terms. So to get the permission, you have to get in touch with the authors or find from third party sources that the image is free (unless Getty advertises an acceptable licence, which I doubt). --LPfi (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A work created in execution of duties of employment

That is, in sense of the the Copyright Act of Estonia (§ 32). The question is about what information is sufficient to have no significant doubt (COM:PRP) that this law provision applies. I'd expect that at least we should be able to tell that the author really was employed (as per law "under an employment contract") and what were one's "direct duties" that are relevant to creating the given work.

Currently File:Klaevi spordiplats 1930 kaardil.png is believed to be in public domain due to applying this law provision. Applying this law provision was contested, since we don't know who was the employer to whom the economic right might have transferred, nor what might have been relevant direct duties. File was kept (twice), saying below the closure decision that "printed and distributed by the editor" and "there is the name of the printer as well". This doesn't seem to prove in any way that the given law provision applies. I'm seeking for more opinions on that. Does it make any sense why the file was kept based on information that we currently have about this work? If I'm missing something and the given reason after all somehow implies that the given law provision might apply, then could someone please try to further clarify this. 62.65.58.38 09:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That law looks to me like one of the few countries which accurately implemented the EU directive on the copyright term of works for hire. I believe that intent was, for works for hire (i.e. works created in execution of duties of employment), that the term is 70pma if the human author is identified on the original publication, but 70 years from publication otherwise (even if the author is named later). To me, it looks like K. Zeibich is named there, as the artist and lithographer, so that should be a 70pma term. Obviously, the copyright at the time was minimal if it existed at all, but these would be the restored copyrights from more recent laws, which would conform to the EU directive. It's not technically special to Estonia but it does explicitly put in the clause mentioned in Article 1(4) of the EU Copyright Term Directive, where the author needs to be named on the initial publication to get the 70pma term. But it seems like the author was named here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, you are are probably right that instead 70pma term applies to this file.
But I'd still like to clarify the above disagreement, in case it again raises about some other work. Let's say that the author wasn't named or work was pseudonymous, and we still wouldn't know more about actual employment or relevant direct duties. In this case, was there any reason to consider it a work created in execution of duties of employment? 62.65.58.38 06:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that is the presumption. Material published by companies is virtually always made by their employees as a work for hire. If an employee published something on his own time, it wouldn't have the company's name on it. The only question is if there was a specific contract which let an individual retain copyright -- but those cases are extremely rare, so I think it's fair to assume these would be works created in execution of their duties of employment. If we find specific evidence of a special contract, that could change things -- but normally yes I think we would assume the company owns the economic rights to works published under their name. They get a 70pma term if they name the human author on the initial publication, and 70 years from publication if they do not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You mean companies like map companies, not publishing/printing houses in general, right? In first case, yes, map companies do employ cartographers. Otherwise, a cartographer who isn't employed as one, can still publish one's work through a publishing company. The same way that writers can publish their books through publishing companies. Obviously there's some sort of contract between the author and the publisher, but it's usually not an employment contract, i.e. it's not author direct duty under a contract to make maps (or write books) for the publisher. So, even though, publisher's name is usually on whatever they publish, this shouldn't allow presuming that the author was employed by the publisher.
Given map doesn't have a name of company that would presumably employ a cartographer on it. It only has name of the printing house on it. 62.65.58.38 06:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

When is a 2D (ish) frame a violation of the Frames policy?

So, I have come across this a few times. File:Émile Bernard - Mirror frame decorated with plants, flowers and two women figures - Google Art Project.jpg - the frame is the object, but is it 3D enough to be a problematic file for Commons? I do see moulding at the top and it does appear to be low-relief carving/molding overall too, so my guess is, it is an infringement, but it's not an obvious one like a full 3D sculpture or fancy frame would be. Any thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Émile Bernard died in 1941. it is his work, or do you have evidence someone else made the frame contrary to the museum metadata? [1] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for delayed response. My question here is, I know that a modern photograph of a PD three-dimensional object is considered copyvio in the way that an accurately reproduced 2D object in public domain isn't. We crop out frames from painting shots for this reason, unless the whole photograph has been released into the PD by the museum/institution or by an uploader who took the photograph. My question is, is this mirror-frame 2D enough to be acceptable, or does it being a low-relief carving/sculpted object make it problematic as a copyvio of the Van Gogh Museum's rights? Mabalu (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Company logo on sign

@Lotje: pointed out that the company logo in File:Toppers Pizza table.jpg may be a copyright violation. I don't know the rules around company logos: this is a sign inside a pizza restaurant and the same logo is visible through the window on the opposite side of the sign. So it's meant to be public so that it can advertise pizza. But perhaps any reproduction of their logo is a copyright problem. I just don't know. Runner1928 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the logo is en:de minimis in this context. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Erich Hartmann (Jagdflieger).jpg

Was it appropropriate to tag this file with {{Npd}}? That tag seems more suitable when an actual claim of ownership is made over the image's copyright; this file, however,is licensend as {{PD-Germany-§134}}. I'm not claiming the file's licensing is correct, but this seems like something which would better be discussed at COM:DR since it seems to involve a little COM:PCP. I'm pretty sure it can be assumed that the photo was taken prior to the end of World War 2; it's not clear, however, who took it and when it was first published. If it can be shown that it was published prior to 1947, then it seems that it would no longer be subject copyright, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that is not a candidate for speedy deletion. That needs to be a regular DR if the PD reason is contested. Something needs to be an obvious problem for a speedy tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK Clindberg. What's typically done in cases such as this? Remove the tag and ask to person who added it to bring the discussion to DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed you did that and were reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair use in India

Hi, No direct consequence here (though it is a reminder that we shouldn't apply copyright law too strictly), but this looks quite interesting: wikinews:Delhi High Court restores copyright infringement case at Delhi University. See also this article by Lawrence Liang. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of death for G. Howard Short

Hi, I recently uploaded this 1914 illustration[2], believing it was published in an American journal (and therefore PD-US), but turns out it was published in the UK, so this does not apply. The illustrator is one G. Howard Short, who I can't find any information about, other than he wrote and illustrated some articles about aviation in the early 20th century. I'd be happy if anyone could somehow find his date of death, so I can see whether the image qualifies as PD-old, otherwise it might have to be uploaded locally on en Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a phrase in this 1925 Cambridge publication which refers to "the late Mr. Howard Short". It also mentions Hankin, one of the publishers of the image in question, so it seems like that would be the same person. Text is also at this link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, Clindberg! That would be enough to establish it is PD-old here, right? FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so. He was the author of this publication. Looks like he was alive at least until 1916, but had died by 1925, is about all we can tell -- but that still makes it PD-old-80. I did find reference to a Mr. George Howard Short who won a prize from the Royal Academy in 1904 for a wall decoration design[3], implying he was a student at the time, but not entirely sure it is the same person (may be; he is referred to as "Mr. G Howard Short" in other articles about the prize). But I think we can at least assume "<= 1925" to be the death year. So, I'd make the license {{PD-old-auto-1923|1925}}. Might be worth making a creator page on him to collect the above info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

misleading ? : "Image courtesy of www-secondcity-com 2014-04-08 12-18"

  • seems to 2nd gen "remix" no such logo on site.
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Renamed and tagged with {{PD-textlog}} Yann (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in regards to architectural plans (Mexico)

The pictures are of models of the new Mexico City airport- both tangible scale models and computer drawn images (posters on walls). Would these images located in the not-yet public (access wise) airport be covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama#Mexico? The pictures are from a presidential visit and were taken by an accompanying photographer- I don't know if this would affect their status. I assume pictures of the models (example 1, example 2) are okay as a similar one is on commons (File:FernandoRomero01.jpeg) (or maybe nobody has noticed a possible intelectual property violation).

How about this image- it is a computer-drawn image used as part of the model exhibits (example). I am not convinced this one would be allowed- too focused on the image and as a result, it may end up looking like it was just ripped from a concept video. My understanding is that FOP covers works like murals -original artwork that can only be found at that site. I'm not sure if computer-drawn images fit that description.

The architecture firms are Mexican and foriegn; I don't know who owns the design plans- I am assuming the Mexican government has bought them considering it is such an important infrastructure project. Does it matter for our purposes, considering FOP? I would greatly appreciate feedback. Xochiztli (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Still frame from 1899 UK silent film?

Ok, I'm utterly failing to find the relevant guidance here. Apologies if this is covered somewhere I should have been able to find.

In any case, here are the factors:

  • Silent film produced in the UK in 1899.
    • Produced by the UK branch of a US studio.
    • The director and camera man died in 1935.
    • The film was screened around the world, including in the US, shortly after production (most likely in 1899).
    • The company in question does not appear to have had any successors in interest, and does not exist any more.
  • Still frames from the film were published in a UK magazine on 27 September 1899.
    • The copyright is listed as belonging to the production company.
    • The author of the article died in 1931.
    • The magazine's editor at the time of publication died in 1926.
    • The magazine ceased publication in 1959.
    • The company publishing the magazine is still a going concern.

So, what I'm certain of is that the film and the stills are PD in the US (pre-1923 publication). What I am less sure of is the copyright status in the UK. Specifically:

  • Who is the author for the film?
    • Is it a corporate work belonging to the production company?
    • Is it a collective work, and who then shares in authorship?
      • Do I need to check when every one of the actors died, for instance? (pretty sure they all went before 1947, but...)
    • Or is it the director and camera man?
      • The docs here suggested UK copyright must vest in a physical, not legal, person, so I'm guessing it's him.
    • Or are corporate works treated like anonymous works, and term calculated from publication (1899)?
  • Are there special terms for films (vs. photos), or for corporate/collective works, or is it +70 years?

My working theory is that both film and stills are PD in the UK, because copyright to both was owned by either the production company and expired 70 years after publication, or to the man who actually made the film and expired 70 years after he died. So I'd appreciate if anyone could shed some light on the key questions here (author of the film, and applicable copyright term), or otherwise illuminate the issue for me.

PS. I'm actually mostly wanting to upload the still frames right now, but having the film as well would be nice (it's historically significant) too at some point in the future. --Xover (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

UK Copyright Act section 13B:
Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of the following persons—'
(a)the principal director,
(b)the author of the screenplay,
(c)the author of the dialogue, or
(d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film;
The last one wouldn't apply, of course. If it is not known who all of the above people are, then the term is 70 years from the last known person from the above list (since there is at least one). The movie would be {{PD-1923}} for the U.S. status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I knew I'd seen guidance like that somewhere, but utterly failed to find it now. --Xover (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
In the event that the film is copyrighted in the UK but covered by {{PD-1923}} for the US, one possibility would be to upload the film and/or film stills to the English Wikipedia (which operates only under US copyright law) using the license tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. --Gazebo (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

ResolvedPhotos deleted by User:Jcb. seb26 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to report it - but seems to me improbable that the uploader of "File:Roberto Estuardo Penedo at the official meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.jpg" was herself present in the Vatican to take the picture. Maproom (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A link to the above mentioned file – I did some digging, and just thought it was worth noting here the other images of this gentleman uploaded by OlgaWills2017 (talk · contribs):
None of them turned up successfully in a Google image reverse search. This blog entry (which I won't link to) www.biography.international written by "Olga Wills" however is one place where the second photo (2).jpg is used. There is an ongoing debate on en.wp for the deletion of the article entry for Penedo. In the case of our project, I get the feeling that Olga Wills could have likely taken these photographs, or likely is connected to the subject sufficiently to get their permission to use them, given that they just generally look like iPhone photos rather than official press photographer shots. The source of the Pope Benedict photo which is what Maproom initially asked, to me is an unresolved question.
I will write a message to OlgaWills2017 (talk · contribs) and ask them if they are happy to provide a little bit more clarification on the source of the images. seb26 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Please, remove the pics, it's already been removed from the article. There are other pics from the news, but it looks like it can't be used for Wiki. Thanks. OlgaWills2017 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Olga: Thank you for letting us know. If you have other concerns about uploading photos, feel free to start a discussion anytime on this page and people will help to give you clarification.
As for the photos above, I have marked them for speedy deletion as copyright violations. seb26 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

files from MapQuest

According to the DR's below it does not seem that MapQuest published under a free license. But there are a lot's of files that created with ShareMap (Category:Created with ShareMap). The EXIF indicate that the file is CC-BY-SA 3.0 but the source also mentioned MapQuest as one of the sources (example).

-- Geagea (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

My initial reading of this OSM page and this readme indicate that the Mapnik style (which I think is the same as Mapquest Open?) is under the MIT License. However, I stand open to correction. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sharemap only lets you export maps if everything shown is available under a free license [4]. There is even a specialized export option that generates an {{Information}}-template and appropriate license tag for Commons. So most of the files in Category:Created with ShareMap should be safe, I guess? --El Grafo (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files from MapQuest. -- Geagea (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Israeli currency

It has come to my attention (rather haphazardly) and that of User:Revent (see earlier discussion) that images of Israeli currency banknotes and coins (en:Currency of Israel) are subject to conditions under Israeli law that may be incompatible with Commons.

A document on the Bank of Israel website titled Instructions concerning the use of photocopies and replicas of coins and banknotes permits the photographic reproduction of items of Israeli currency provided that they meet the following conditions. For the reference of others, here is their Legislation & Regulation page which contains links to other documents that might be useful in interpreting the below. One important one at least would be the Bank of Israel Law 2010 (English) (note: this PDF does not appear to be text-searchable with Ctrl+F when I tried).

I have excerpted the following from section 2:

(c) A replica of a coin or banknote may be used as part of a design or an advertisement, provided that the all the following conditions are met:
  • 3) Elements of the design of the coin or banknote must not be changed, and no features, other than text for advertising purposes, shall be added to the replica.

So the condition that the designs "must not be changed" can very well be interpreted as a clause prohibiting derivative versions. I believe for this reason that images of Israeli currency are not compatible with our licensing policy to share media with free restriction to make modifications.

Aside from this, I still think these images have substantial value of both a documentary and historical purpose for Wikimedia projects, with the most obvious example being the Hebrew Wikipedia (link to English-language embassy page). So I bring this discussion here for the following purposes:

  • Discuss this interpretation of these local law conditions, and whether this warrants deletion of all images from Commons
  • Decide if this affects all Israeli currency from all dates, or only ones that are still in copyright by the state
  • If they are to be deleted, coordinate a plan with Hebrew Wikipedia with respect for their image policy, to upload the currency images locally

seb26 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Affected images
The majority of images have been tagged with {{Money-IL}}, which quotes the conditions in English from the above document. Approximately 189 images. Relevant categories:
Other relevant links
seb26 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to comment, simply, that I believe that this is a significant question that impacts an existing and widely used licensing template. I have not specifically read the relevant documents (I am very mistrustful of translations from Hebrew) but would specifically ping @Geagea: and @Yuval Y: as Israeli admins. - Reventtalk 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Also @Matanya: .
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. as a matter of fact I never check it and it's look like you are correct in the general idea. Any way we have less problem with the coins as most of them are or ineligible or contain very old symbols of Israel. Also part of the files are from Mandatory Palestine period. Before the independance of Israel. Not sure if he.wiki have a different policy about that. part of the files might be qulify as fair use. Anyway I will check it with he.wiki people and will take care all needed to bring it to the correct condition. -- Geagea (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This feels more like a moral rights type of thing (don't change the design to make a viewer think the changed design is actually on coins, etc.) That doesn't prohibit derivative works entirely (such as changing the aspect or something), just that the underlying design is not altered, which could prejudice the original author in the minds of viewers. Plenty of FoP clauses have similar restrictions on them. If a change gets to the level of parody, that would be fair use and beyond the author's ability to prohibit anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The whole issue in this document is about the money in Legal tender, which means the current used money in Israel. This regulation is in a purpose of preventing an option of using the file to make a fake money. Anyway it is not about copyright. Also more, the criminal code of Israel, 1977 section 467 (PDF) says:
"Imitation of banknote
467. If a person makes or circulates anything that is not a currency note, but which is essentially similar to a currency note that is legal tender in Israel, then he is liable to a fine of NS 9,600."
I dont really know if photograph or scan of a banknote considered as an "imitation". If so it is not allowed even for a fair use but not sure about it. Even the Bank of Israel website include sampels of Israeli banknotes. -- Geagea (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The restrictions fall into the category of "non-copyright restrictions", which are not considered on Commons according to the policy Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. However, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Israel, works by the Israeli government are protected by copyright for 50 years. Even if the images have substantial value for documentary or historical purposes, the restrictions on the images are not acceptable because files on Commons must be freely-licensed as defined at Commons:Licensing. Unfortunately the Israeli banknotes that are copyrighted (released in last 50 years) must be deleted. Banknotes in the public domain in Israel on 1 January 1996 are not copyrighted in the US (see [5]). Because Commons policy is that images must be freely-licensed in both the US and source country, unless Israeli copyright changed since then, banknotes from 1948-1955 are in the public domain in both the US and Israel and can be uploaded to Commons. For banknotes that were copyrighted in Israel as of 1 January 1996, they are still copyrighted in the United States for 95 years, so Israeli banknotes from 1956-1966 are still copyrighted in the US and cannot be uploaded to Commons.

So to summarize, banknotes from 1948-1955 are OK on Commons (public domain in both US and Israel), banknotes from 1956 and later are not OK because they are copyrighted (in the US or both US and Israel) and not available under a free license. AHeneen (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this de minimis?

This image File:Projected portrait of Liu Xiaobo on Grant Hotel Oslo.jpg contains a projection of a most likely non-free image on an outdoor building. This does not seem like de minimis because the projected image seems to be the whole point of the photo? Is this image OK to be on Commons? --Wcam (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is not de minimis. The photo should be nominated for deletion. The image on the building is almost certainly subject to copyright. AHeneen (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist Flickr account?

Resolved

Hi, Are we able to blacklist Flickr accounts ?,
I've come across This Flickr user who in the space of 2 months has uploaded 137,455 photos all of which contain:

copyright tags with various peoples names on - (https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34583153346, https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/33822300893/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34590809066 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34632191515),
different style timestamps on some images - (https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/33789092234, https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34469979352/, https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34632026705, https://www.flickr.com/photos/148300788@N03/34631966835/)

as well as different cameras for each image,

I've sent a report to Flickr however I'm not entirely sure if they'll do anything so was wondering if anything could be done here before their images get uploaded,

They've licensed the images under a Public Domain license however we have no proof that the original photographers had licensed them under this license, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see Commons:Questionable Flickr images. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah brilliant thank you LX much appreciated :), –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Follow up comment - Flickr had read my report and have since deleted the user account as well as all of their images, and their name's been added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images as well as the to the Flickr2Commons bot page (so their images cannot be uploaded via F2C although not that it really matters now), Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Simple diagram from a non-free source

User:Phansn has uploaded File:Pseudechis Bayesian Species Tree.png, with a description that says that it has been redrawn from a diagram in a paper in a recent academic journal. This is a simple diagram with species names. Is this simple enough to pass the de minimis rules, or should this be deleted as a copyright violation? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is {{Pd-ineligible}} as it is a trivial representation of some abstract idea only (e.g. relationship between species). Ruslik (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is likely {{Pd-ineligible}}, and recreating the pattern of lines to words with {{Clade}} is common on Wikipedia (see e.g. Archosaur#Phylogeny). I'd add that a template-based diagram is preferable to a static image of text, to enable better viewing and editable text. -Animalparty (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have tagged the file with {{Pd-ineligible}} and have left a note on the contributor's talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijani government book

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Truffle-vanilla, images from an online version of a government-published fauna/flora guidebook in Azerbaijan are being debated.

It affects 236 files but no one has commented yet except for me and the nominator. There is a chance that they could be exempt from copyright because of the numerous mentions everywhere of the book being "an official document of the state" under Azerbaijani law. However, the chance is slimmer when we consider we haven't accessed a copy of the book to verify and the website doesn't have a terms of use page.

Could somebody else contribute to this before it has to close? seb26 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Seb26, the images were deleted yesterday by Sealle per COM:PRP. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Wikicology. The decision was best given the uncertainty. seb26 (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposing to update PD-IDOld-Art30 to PD-IDOld-Art59

Hello!

Articles 124 from Law Number Year 2014 on Copyright states that:

"At the time this Act comes into force, Act No. 19 of 2002 on Copyright (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2002 Number 85, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4220) is revoked and declared invalid."

According to that provision, the information of Public Domain provision in Indonesia stated in this template shall be updated with new provisions from Article 59 Law Number 28 Year 2014 on Copyright:

"Article 59 (1) Protection Copyright on: a. photographic works; b. Images; c. cinematographic works; d. video games; e. Computer programs; f. appearance of the paper; g. translations, interpretations, adaptations, anthologies, databases, adaptation, arrangement, modification and other works of the results of the transformation; h. translation, adaptation, arrangement, transformation or modification of traditional cultural expressions; i. Creation or data compilation, either in a format that can be read by the computer program or other media; and j. compilation of traditional cultural expressions during the compilation of an original work, is valid for 50 (fifty) years since the announcement was first made."

How can we provide assistance to change the template information?

Regards, Hilmanasdf (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

CC BY-NC-SA versus Public Domain

Hi. Once again I have met the use of CC BY-NC-SA on items that belong to the Public Domain. I have just uploaded this neat watercolour to Commons in spite of the website's (Danish Maritime Museum) proclamation of CC BY-NC-SA, which is not allowed on Commons. However, I think that Public Domain rights (painter died in 1853) overrides this claim. Am I missing something here, or are they trying to protect content with a license that is not enforceable in this case? Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-Art}} would seem to be the correct license here. Whether a photograph would rise to a copyrightable level in a particular country, is hard to say without court rulings -- but Commons policy would overrule that for uploads here anyways. You may want to use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} to specify the NC-SA license for the photo, if that is possible, since that could still help re-users in other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
no - you are not missing anything. we are trying to coach institutions to let go of the NC on public domain items, but it is hard. in europe, they still have the faint hope of "sweat of the brow". please consider using template:artwork, with old uploader[6], or commons:pattypan. we also have refrained from combing through and uploading all their items [7], preferring to upload institutions who work with us at "sum of all paintings"[8], but it us a matter of time. cheers. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, under Danish copyright law, the digitalized version of a public domain artwork is a derivative work and so the museum does have copyright of the digitized image under Danish law! See this web page which states for Denmark: "As the general legal situation under EU law states, copyright protected works are protected as a derivative work after digitisation. Works in the public domain are protected as an independent work after digitisation." And also read Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Nordic countries.

However, this is an exception to the rule on Commons that images must be freely-licensed in both the source country and US. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Other countries:

Nevertheless, under Commons rules the {{PD-Art}} tag can be used for "faithful reproduction" photographs of 2D public domain works of art even where copyright on the reproduction might be asserted under local law in the source country.

This is a rare exception to the usual Commons rule that all images must be free both in the US and in the source country. Note that this exception only concerns the copyright on the reproduction. The underlying work of art must still be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin.

I don't know what the correct license template to use is, because there is no license templates for non-free licenses. AHeneen (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The same site says "N.B. We recommend that you read the executive summary of the research before you proceed to the maps." In the context, it seems that the web page you linked to applies primarily to three-dimensional works of art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, but the answer is probably the same. Another type of digitization on that site is "semi-automated", which is described as Semi-automated digitisation realised by human operators (such as a person taking pictures or manually photocopying collections for inventory or classificatory purposes) which can be applied to texts, images and objects. Generally, this type of digitisation takes place without creative choices of the person who assists the process. Some technical skills may be present. In this scenario, the digitized version may be copyrighted ([9]) "The specific circumstances of the case have to be assessed on the level of technical skill and know-how." AHeneen (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding PD-US licence for original design/use of flag

Could someone look at this edit request? It doesn't make sense to me. Also, shouldn't the flag be licenced under {{PD-GreekGov}}? Just like it is in many other countries, i.e. national symbols, documents, etc. are not subject of given country's copyright law. --jdx Re: 09:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For US it can be {{Pd-ineligible}}. Ruslik (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
According to w:Flag of Greece#Adoption, the design of the flag was first adopted in 1822. The appropriate copyright template is {{PD-1923}} (for the US) which needs to be combined with the copyright tag for the source country. For the Greek copyright, {{PD-old-100}} can be used since it is safe to say that the flag's designer died before 1917 (95 years after the flag design was adopted), but without any firm date for the death date of the flag's designer I think the best option is to just use {{PD-GreekGov}}. To add the two copyright templates, use {{PD-two}}, so the code added to the file should be:
{{PD-two|1=PD-GreekGov|2=PD-1923}}
AHeneen (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn't {{PD-GreekGov}} alone enough? --jdx Re: 19:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The design of a (national) flag is usually not a concern, copyright-wise. See Commons:Coats of arms, which is a similar situation. The Greek design is is PD-ineligible anyways. The license template is for that particular SVGification, which might be valid in some countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that the design (i.e. description and drawing) of the flag is PD, may its representation (e.g. SVG) be non-PD? I bet that Greeks have an act where their national insignia are described and drawn (perhaps even colour values are specified). Anyway, I am completely confused. IMO if the flag is PD, then {{PD-GreekGov}} (or {{PD-ineligible}}/{{PD-shape}} because the design is very simple) is enough; there is no need for a second licence tag for the USA. BTW. According to the AHeneen's proposition this flag is not PD in the USA because it was designed/published in 2014, right? --jdx Re: 06:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. If you hand-edit the SVG, the way you do that could be considered a computer program or literary work, independent of the graphic it produces. Choosing vector points and curves for a more complex drawing may be possible for a copyright. And in the UK (and countries based on its law), where sweat-of-the-brow copyright may exist, then definitely. The license may not really be valid in most countries, but it might in some, so we should keep it. I don't think there is a need for additional tags, really. For most national flag graphics, where there are usually specification sheets which are part of law, and the resulting design is rarely copyrightable. We are usually concerned about the particular drawing -- we don't want to take a copyrighted drawing off a website, but drawing your own should be OK. Many flags have possible variations where drawings can indeed have separate copyrights, though it would be quite rare for the Greek flag given its simplicity. Private flag designs can be different -- the Aboriginal flag in Australia was deemed copyrighted in a court case (granted, that is one of those sweat-of-the-brow countries and that copyright is almost certainly not valid in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: The 2014 flag is copyrighted in the US. See this webpage. The US protects works, even if they were always in the public domain in the source country. According to [10]: "The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if (1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or (2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party ..." So regular copyright length applies. That is the reason the Greek flag needs a US copyright template. AHeneen (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And no, the U.S. does not protect the content of foreign laws. {{PD-EdictGov}}. Secondly, the nature of a design is an "idea". Ideas are not copyrightable. If there is only one way to draw a design, then the idea and expression "merge" and there is no copyright (see w:Idea–expression divide). A drawing cannot be a derivative work of a written description, basically -- they are separate forms of expression. A particular *drawing* can be copyrighted, if there is enough wiggle room from the design to have additional expression. So yes, a drawing (which is not part of the law) from a foreign website may have U.S. copyright. But, that is specific to that drawing, not the general design of the flag itself, and should not preclude someone from making their own drawing. Non-government flags may not have nearly the same situation, but this is the usual situation for governmental flags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright discussion relating to illegal software

Just wanted to bring more eyes to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png if there is anyone who has not seen it. This is a screenshot of a malware program used in the WannaCry ransomware attack last week. seb26 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the question raised in this discussion is very interesting and an answer to it could be relevant for future cases of screenshots of software created for criminal purposes: if the screenshot reaches the threshold of originality, is the legal doctrine Ex turpi causa non oritur actio applicable, which would mean that original works created for criminal purposes can't gain copyright protection? If yes, I think we would need a specific licensing template for such cases, as {{PD-ineligible}} and the like wouldn't be really fitting. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruthanne Fuller.jpg

This is licensed as {{PD-because}} giving the reason "because It was created by the Newton City Government, which did not copyright the image"; however, the photo appears here on the city's official website. Can it be assumed that content appearing on that website is not protected by copyright? I thought the opposite is assumed in that content on a website is assumed to be protected by copyright unless it is clearly stated otherwise; moreover, the disclaimer posted here states "The City of Newton's website and its contents are the property of the City of Newton."

Now, it's possible that COM:VP/C#PD-MA license may be something that covers these kinds of images, but again I'm not 100% sure.

Anyway, all of the above also applies to File:Scott Lennon.jpg and File:Amy Mah Sangiolo.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LoganZombieOfTime‎. There is {{PD-MAGov}}, but it doesn't seem to apply here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look a this Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

American photo from 1972

A young Swedish animator visited the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank in May 1972. In the very same month a Swedish local paper published a photo showing the event - without any Copyright-information. The photo must have been taken by some anonymous Disney employee and have most likely never been published in USA. May I upload the file on Commons as for instance "{{PD-1996}}" or is the photo more likely protected by copyright? --N0WIS (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that the photo is in public domain in Sweden now or was in 1996. Ruslik (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sweden joined the Berne Convention in 1904 and the World Trade Organization in 1995, so {{PD-1996}} is not relevant and the image is copyrighted in the US and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. AHeneen (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant; the US didn't join the Berne Convention until 1989, and the whole point of the URAA is that Berne Convention countries were unhappy with the lack of copyright of their older works in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And so after the URAA, many works that were copyrighted in Berne Convention countries but not in the US gained copyright protection in the US. All three requirements in {{PD-1996}} must be met for the image to be in the public domain in the US. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Sweden says If the photograph was published before 1994, transitional regulations apply—see {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. If the photo was published in Sweden in the 1970s, it doesn't fit any of the criteria in {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. AHeneen (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If you're contending that it wasn't (and isn't) in the public domain in Sweden, then okay. Commons doesn't care about US law at that point, and no one seriously thought that Sweden was an non-signer to major copyright legislation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

File:WWE SmackDown Live 2016 logo.png

Was wondering if this file is really acceptable as {{PD-textlogo}}. The current version may be OK, but I'm not sure about the 3D effects or 3D fonts. In addition, there's an older completely different version that seems more like to be COM:FU than a text logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted the old version, not OK anyway. Yann (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like standard 3D text effects - no creativity implied. Ruslik (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Generic" CC-BY-SA

Hi all, I've found a number of images with a "CC-BY-SA" license. Is this "generic" license valid? Which version should it be translated to here? Many thanks --Discasto talk 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there have been discussions before, but not sure there were any firm conclusions. Technically, without a version number it's not a specific license. On the other hand, it should be one of the known set, all of which would be free. Personally, I would use the version number which was most "current" at the time the license was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the term "CC-BY-SA" or similar phrases may also be linked to a specific version of the licence that is not otherwise indicated. E. g. YouTube has a link to their own subpage where the Creative Commons licence is explained without a dedicated version number, but from there you'll get link to the original CC licence summary including the version. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've double checked that and haven't found a link or subpage defining the exact version. I do think I'll proceed as Carl has proposed above. --Discasto talk 21:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of radio programmes

For a simple radio commentary, unscripted - like the one at https://audioboom.com/posts/806813-fleet-lit-up - am I right in thinking that copyright expires 70 years (in the UK; or equivalent elsewhere) after the death of the commentator? Or does some other rule apply? Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is true but the limit - 70 years may be different in different countries, for instance, it may be 80 year or 50 years. Ruslik (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In the UK, see the IPO guidance. For a work which was:
  • communicated to the public ("for example, played on the radio"); and
  • within 50 years of being made (obviously so for a live broadcast); then
  • copyright lasts for 70 years from the year it was first broadcast; *except*
  • if it was published after being communicated to the public (but within 70 years of its first communication to the public); then:
  • copyright lasts for 70 years from the year it was first published
So it's a bit complicated if it was later "published", but otherwise it's broadcast+70 rather than life+70, at last for the "recording" element. There may be copyright in the words spoken, in which case i gets a bit complicated, but this seems less likely for a simple verbatim recording rather than, eg, someone reading a poem. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Facebook files from Flickr

Hi, We have files with Facebook mark (FBMD*), then copied to Flickr, then uploaded here. Typical case: many images by this Flickr account from File:A porta-bandeira do -timebrasil, Yane Marques, feliz da vida na abertura da -rio2016 (28267594063).jpg and forward, all copied from Facebook, and available under a free license. Many useful images for Wikimedia. Thoughts? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of potential Flickrwashing in those cases. But is is possible that there are some "cross-upload" tools, i.e. I upload something to Facebook and it will automatically be posted to Flickr? this image has the tag "instagram app", for instance. Could this be something similar? In those cases, these images could be genuine. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The images in Category:Files from lotsemann Flickr stream and on the Flickr page look very suspicious to me. Various sizes, qualities, motifs, inconsistent tags. I suspect someone uploaded/shared them from Facebook to Flickr using the Flickr app. We should be watchful. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been able to get a good feel for this one. From the Flickr stream, the FBMD photos are consistent with ones from 2015 and earlier where they were taken with a Sony phone camera mostly, and a few other non-phone cameras. There are a number of cameras, but there are multiple photos taken with each. The sizes do look phone-camera-ish (many are square). So, it's possible that the author changed his general process to upload to Facebook first, then transfer to Flickr. It sure seems like that person works at a port in Brazil, and thus gets a lot of shipping photos there. They do not look like random photos from all over, but rather his own. The Olympics photos... hrm. The vantage points sure seem like they may have been lifted from a TV broadcast, but the frame sizes are still consistent with a phone camera -- always possible he volunteered to work there and had good positions. Dunno. I'd lean that all the shipping photos are OK, but I still have doubts on the Olympic ones, unless he was there as a photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

wont let me post photos

Im new and Im trying to post a photo that I took with my own camera but its basically saying I cant post because it cant determine the source of the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityboi78 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you took the photo with your own camera (or, for that matter, with any camera), then the source is "own work". This is true unless the photo is of an object that has its own copyright. in which case it is much more complicated. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Scale model

Hi guys, I have a issue about scale model, in Brazil we have freedom of panorama, so we can take pictures of any building... but what about a scale model of this edification?

Seems to be grey for me...

Any ideas? thanks for our time. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The answer depends on the text of the freedom of panorama law. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Brazil, the law says: "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes" ("As obras situadas permanentemente em logradouros públicos podem ser representadas livremente, por meio de pinturas, desenhos, fotografias e procedimentos audiovisuais.").
I think the answer is no. The law does not say that buildings are free of copyright, only that photos of buildings do not violate the copyright of the building. If the scale model is not "permanently located in [a] public place[]", a photograph of the scale model is a copyright violation. AHeneen (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually Brazilian FOP (as quoted above) would not allow a person to make a scale model of a building without violating the building's copyright, but I don't think that is the question here. Scale models have their own copyright as sculptures whether the original is copyrighted or not. We all understand that a scale model of a man or a lion has a copyright. The same rule applies to scale models of cars, buildings, and anything else. Therefore photographing a scale model of anything is usually an infringement on the model's copyright..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly copyrighted image

Hi! I was going over some students' work and I found this image: File:Timeline4incarceration.gif. The image looks like it was taken from somewhere, possibly a government document. The only snafu here is that the student, Arpan.pal1234, has marked it as their own work rather than attributing it to the proper source. The reason I suspect that this was not created by the student is this website, which uses an altered form of the image. I checked via the Wayback Machine and they were using it in 2015, so this was definitely taken from somewhere else. (The page is a long political rant, but the image is towards the end-ish.)

I can't seem to find it - can anyone see if they can locate the original document? I'll reach out to the student, but the class is over and they don't always respond once the class is officially over so I wanted to cover my bases. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): that appears to be a cropped & reduced version of File:US Relative Incarceration Rate.png by KJBurns, which has been here since 2010 under a {{PD-self}} licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I’d say it’s legal, given the PD original, and probably policy-compliant, but I don’t think it’s entirely “OK”—in an academic context at least—not to include the provenance or replace the cropped-out source info with descriptive text.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

PD-MA license

A new license tag, {{PD-MA}}, was created by Simtropolitan recently. The justification given for declaring Massachusetts government works as PD seems pretty reasonable to me. However, I wanted to double-check before I go hog-wild using it for uploads. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Pi.1415926535 for making this post, I should've gone through a more formal process when making that. I'm currently working for the state in Boston (though I am not acting in capacity as an official) and it's well understood here that works of the Commonwealth are public domain, whereas works of municipalities are given a certain jurisdiction of their own. If anyone feels this needs more documentation or better language, please let me know. This tag would be extremely useful for uploading items from projects like the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), and I do feel it is better to note this than a general PD-US. --Simtropolitan (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, this seems pretty clear an straight-forward to me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
For consistency, the template should be renamed "PD-MAGov" to match similar templates for other US state governments. See Commons:Copyright tags#US States and Territories. AHeneen (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There is already a {{PD-MAGov}} tag. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Simtropolitan, the template relies on statements about "records". Are we sure that the word "records" includes photographs and other works of art created by Commonwealth employees? I would ordinarily assume that it does not. I would be much more comfortable with this if we got a specific statement from the AG that was worded more broadly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, the AG referred me to the Secretary of Commonwealth's office, and indeed there is a citation given here on page 7 explicitly stating public records are considered to be-
“all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee”
I can also confirm verbally that all work created by the Commonwealth is considered public record except for technical areas where the Commonwealth is a co-owner of the intellectual property with a private organization, such as vendor owned technologies (e.g. while the transit authority owns the systems for the rail-time estimates, Daktronics displays of course still have their own patents) . I would be glad to change the language to include this. --Simtropolitan (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your effort here. However, while the quote above is very broad and answers my first question, it raises a different one. It says "...made or received by any officer or employee..." That suggests strongly that either (a) the Secretary's office is careless or that (b) the Secretary's office believes that anything sent to "any officer or employee" somehow becomes PD. That's just silly -- if I send a book -- one to which I do not own the copyright -- to my State Senator, it cannot possibly somehow become PD. Even if I do own the copyright to something I send, I doubt very much that the Commonwealth can take away my copyright. So, while we have clarity in one regard, we can't rely on something that is patently absurd. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, that is what I was saying. This is the definition of those state works which are covered by their policy, it does not exempt the state from disclosure required when a private entity is so licensed, as with the example I gave above and the one you illustrated. That quote is one sentence from 84 pages summarizing exemptions, there are common law privileges to property owners in the broad definition of “public records". This does however address that photographs and works in other mediums created by the state, in absence of other licenses, are in the public domain. --Simtropolitan (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we merge these two templates {{PD-MAGov}} and {{PD-MA}}? --Wcam (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Support, didn't know the other existed. --Simtropolitan (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:RIA Novosti

As I can see, during this co-operation project RIANbot (and only RIANbot) uploaded several hundred images from RIAN archives. The last of them have been uploaded in 2012. Please explain me, is it legal, that some users (e.g.,Igor3188) go on uploads like that (e.g., File:Valery Leontiev1982.jpg), including even images that made in 2016: File:Moscow City Nov 2016.jpg, File:Krasnodar Stadium2016.jpg. The question is: is this project ended or not? Can anyone upload any RIAN photos using the template {{RIAN-license}}? --Яй (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kaganer, A.Savin, Ahonc, Butko, and EugeneZelenko: @George Chernilevsky, Gruznov, Maxim, Putnik, and Rubin16: @Sealle, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: --Яй (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
free photos are uploaded from the dedicated account only, those photos of 2016 are not free and the project is actually frozen rubin16 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
+1. The project is long discontinued and none of the RIAN photos other than what was uploaded years ago by the RIANbot is freely licensed. As this is not the first misunderstanding of this kind with RIAN stuff, maybe there should be an Abuse filter to prevent users using {{RIAN-license}} for uploads (@Zhuyifei1999: ?) --A.Savin 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I hate to say that: But we have 2000 ABF conditions (and we are not fare away from reaching them) thus i am not a fan of creating a filter for such stuff. I suggest to create a script which is watching for such new uploads. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plaque in UK

Is the plaque, File:Fletcher moss croft2.jpg, copyrightable in the UK and/or the US? --George Ho (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It may be too simple for US but copyrighted in UK. Ruslik (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The plaque has the logo at the bottom. --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Would concur as to possible copyright in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Logo would be de minimis / incidental there. (Though is copyrighted if you crop to the logo alone.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. The logo alone would not make the entire plaque copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded the local copy as en:File:Plaque - Action for Birds by RSPB.jpg and then nominated the Commons copy for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

File:Green warbler-finch.jpg looks dubious to me - only two uploads by uploader, which are wholly unrelated to each other. Google image search gives a hit for it at https://hotspotbirding.com/species?name=Certhidea%20olivacea but my browser lists this as an insecure site so I can't access it to check. Can someone else (with good computer security!) check it out, please? - Thanks, MPF (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

At that site the photo is credited “Image provided by Wikipedia”.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Tough call. The bird one was uploaded just 12 days after being taken, but I don't see any other hits. The waterfall one is from Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/113546986@N05/31476510096 ; it has a free license there, but also has a copyright statement in the EXIF (not really matching the username either at Flickr or here), so not really sure if that was copied from elsewhere. The Flickr account has several photos by the same Canon model... and also, a bit earlier in the stream, from a high-end Nikon model (which look like more personal photos). Stream also has photos from both an iPhone and a Motorola. Sort of odd, but might be OK -- the Flickr user would have had to copy a series of photos from another site, not just one, and maybe it's photos from a husband/wife tandem, or couple friends, or something like that. Does not look like blatant Flickrwashing. Not a whole lot of confidence the Commons uploader is the same person, but could be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Images from Tasnim needing reviewing

Hi everyone. I just thought I'd share that I noticed something while sorting through images from Category:Photos from tasnimnews.com, an Iranian media site that free licenses photographs. We sort these for license reviewing because not all content appearing on the site is under this license.

There are 1,422 images that have the Tasnim tag but have not been reviewed (and have no review template). This essentially means they have slipped past the radar because they have no {{Licensereview}} tag. This number technically includes the 145 (edit: now 0!) images in Category:Tasnimnews review needed that we are tracking. Nonetheless this reveals the backlog to be much larger than previously thought.

Would it be worth having a bot go through and tag these for {{Licensereview}} so they can populate the maintenance category and reviewers can get to work? Or should the template {{Tasnim}} be redesigned to include a review mechanism (like {{Pixabay}}) so that all images automatically are marked for review?

seb26 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Odia Wikipedia Edit-a-thon Poster.svg

This poster is using the copyrighted logo en:File:Logo of 2017 Asian Athletics Championships.png as part of this design. Does that make it unsuitable for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, have you asked the uploader to comment yet? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Saumyaanaidu: Why do you think this is OK for Commons? I do not think that using a copyrighted logo to create a derivative work means the the logo's copyright is now void. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
would the questioner care to consider Commons:De minimis. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a photo with something that happens to be visible in the background. The logo didn't appear by itself on the poster. It is placed on the poster deliberately. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure de minimis applies to something like this for the reason given by Asclepias. The logo was added to a poster created to promote a certain event. It's not even clear if the organization which holds the copyright on the logo is an official sponsor of the event, but I'm not sure whether that would matter for Commons licensing purposes even if they were. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
yeah - why would anyone want to put their chapter materials with corporate logos here, just upload them locally out of the reach of this lot. are you going to collaborate with this editor, or just whinge at drama boards? the principles of de minimis apply here. the louvre pyramid in the center of a photo was held to be de minimis. "deliberation" has nothing to do with it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Packaging and copyrights

I've posted an image with packaged buckwheat and it will be deleted soon. My question is if my grandchildren can upload it after 95 years, when the copyrights expire. Thanks. Fructibus (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It depends on whether you ever have grandchildren or not. Ruslik (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean, if it can be uploaded (by whoever) after 95 years. Of course my family has better access to my work, thats why I was mentioning grandchildren. But it can be people outside of my family. My children can leave my work to some friends, etc. Fructibus (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wording of PD-animal template

Template:PD-animal currently contains text that reads:

This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.

I think this wording is inadequate, because it implies that copyright only exists if it's vested in a human author. In fact, as I understand it, if a work is written for hire, the copyright can be vested in a corporation from the outset; also,even if a human author holds a copyright originally, it can be sold and later vested in a corporation. I think the notice either needs to be shortened to omit the logical justification (just say ...because it is the work of a non-human animal) or else carefully reworded by someone knowledgeable in copyright law in order to make the logic correct.

(That's all I have to say on the subject.) --69.159.60.50 23:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:NAVSO 4thFleet Two Logo Image 103116.png

Wondering if we could apply {{PD-USNavy}} here. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Own work would not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
this could be a source http://www.public.navy.mil/comusnavso-c4f/Pages/USNAVSO_4th%20Fleet.aspx -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Design Rights"

Subsequent to comments in a previous thread, it was suggested that in respect of certain media, some sort of warning about potential {{Design rights}} was needed, owing to the differing protections these are afforded in the US and elsewhere.

Commons already implements {{Trademark}}.

Let's have the discussion about what such a template would need to say here.

The need arises because in the US and other jurisdictions certain elements of a design of for example the shape of ships hull; the mask artwork for a semi-conductor; wallpaper patterns; the pictographs used in a signage system; the shape of letters in a typeface and the respective layout metrics; the pattern on a tie, amongst many other examples can variously be subject to additional protections beyond those of copyright. These additional rights typically relate to the ability for the design elements (such as shapes, colors or arrangement) to be re-used, marketed, or adapted in other designs.

Whilst in some jurisdictions these rights are held to apply only to 3D objects, in others they can be applied for in relation to elements of 2D artwork (like a semiconductor mask, or font metrics) which would otherwise only be subject to copyright.

In addition, design rights may only apply in specific circumstances (such as real world use), or be excluded from applying if the design element is an essential functional aspect of that design, (for example its not a unique design element for a plug to have pins.)

Whilst Wikimedia Commons, generally follows the US lead in such matters, and thus certain "design rights" from other jurisdictions are not necessarily applied on commons, as a global platform, it should at least perhaps warn potential downstream users that they may be applicable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion User:ShakespeareFan00. Interesting idea - I see that some files have both the templates template:PD-shape and template:Trademarked, which together seem to indicate that a file is free to use under US law the image whilst addressing the concern that it may be restricted in some countries. I wonder if that is adequate or if a new template, as you suggest, should be created to cover this scenario? I'm not a rights expert, so don't feel qualified to comment in depth, but I think we should look at what's already established on Commons and how it can be adapted to be used more effectively. Cnbrb (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There is {{Copydesign}} template. Ruslik (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted, but that says the design is copyright, not subject to a "design right" an important distinction.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now placed an inital draft of a possible tag here - User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/DesignRights and would welcome some feedback.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I have encountered this problem a few times and when I looked in the past I felt that there was no documentation on it. If you want to draft some documentation, then I think that would be useful. If someone establishes a place to describe the issue and how to address it, then I think others will contribute over time. One case that I tried to address was the upload of some architectural mockups in the UAE. The situation there was that an organization provided computer images of what some buildings would look like. They had their legal counsel confirm that they held the rights to the art, and the design of the building, and everything else, but Wikipedia did not then have a way to note all the copyrights and rights which they released in the upload. See one image at File:Entrance of motiongate Dubai .jpg and see links to discussions at en:Talk:Dubai_Parks_and_Resorts. There are lots of places where there is no freedom of panorama to photograph buildings and where part of the necessary release might be for the building design to be featured in a photograph. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer that any documentation was drafted by someone with more experience, really. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: You have been here 10 years and made thousands of edits. I hate to give you the bad news, but you are the most qualified, insightful, and knowledgeable person in the world to address this topic and establish the precedent to guide all future human discourse in this direction. The proof of this is that you recognized the problem and asked the question. Your template is great. I think you could move it to mainspace and start using it, if you liked. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Giovanna Ciocca.jpg

Does this pass muster? I'm assuming, without knowing for certain, that it's a 19-century image. It's credited to the Harvard Theatre Collection, and I got it from a 1945 journal article. Thanks for your guidance. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This image is certainly in public domain as it is at least 150 years old. Ruslik (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:OS OpenData

OS migrated to OGL3, so this license only applies to material issued before the shift. See here (http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2015/02/were-using-the-open-government-licence-to-encourage-greater-use-of-os-opendata-products/)

Ideally this tag needs updating. Only the license has changed it seems, the other things like attribution haven't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What does this cover? Does this allow us to host maps pasted from the OS Open Data Viewer? Does it extend to the OS 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 maps available on Bing maps? Verbcatcher (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
In relation to the OpenDataViewer, it might, you'd have to ask the Ordnance Survey directly. My understanding is that it probably doesn't cover the more detailed mapping on Bing which is under a separate commercial arrangement. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Yes, all scales of the maps at the OpenDataViewer are available under OGL. No, none of the maps available at Bing are (the 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 scale are the key commercial products which OS wants to keep restricted).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:@nilfanion thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

UK transport-related graphics

A commons user is on a mission to delete a large number of image files related to UK transport. This involves literally thousands of files, simply too many to keep up with. I feel there should be some centralised discussion of the concerns he raises, and I can find no record of such a discussion, let alone consensus. Files affected include several logos such as File:BR arrows.png and everything under Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United Kingdom. Personally I completely disagree with all the deletion requests as they fall under PD-textlogo and, importantly, are covered by Commons:Threshold of originality. As far as I can see, this proposed mass deletion of content does is not based on any consensus, just on an individual decision, and contradicts established Commons policy. If Commons policy is found to be deficient, then that should be changed first rather than thousands of files being deleted. I think this deletion should be halted, but I don't know what to do about it. Cnbrb (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, these are bogus nominations. However I am concerned that ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contributions · Statistics) is a meatpuppet of some admin type who shall finish the task. I have ceased being active on commons due to actions like this. SV1XV (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Firstly I'm not Stefan4 (talk · contribs) or Betacommand (talk · contribs), and many of the concerns could be resolved very quickly by getting an OTRS confirmation out of the relevant off-wiki parties, some people here seem reluctant to do this even if it would clarify matters considerably. I was in the process of attempting to the clarify the status of certain things in respect of the BR logo, and the former BR Typeface (Rail Alphabet) when a confusion arose as to whether "Transport" (ie the UK Road sign font) was meant as opposed to "Rail Alphabet" (i.e the British Rail font) and the respective status of each, because of this additional concern about the status of "Transport" typeface there also arose on my part an ambiguity with respect to many other design elements (not just the typefaces) within UK road signs as hosted on Commons. There is no 'mission' here, other than to have materials that Commons can clearly be said to be "freely licensed". Based on the response from the parties off-wiki, I'm not as confident about the supposed Public Domain status as others here on Commons are.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Also some of the correspondence of this is now in the OTRS permission queue.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Who are the "parties"? And why would these not fall under {{OGL}}? Also see objections at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:British motorway plaques. --Rschen7754 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The off-wiki parties in this instance would be the National Archives (who took over from HMSO/OPSI) and the Department for Transport. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead of saying "off-wiki responses" have concerned you, you could either directly quote, or at least paraphrase those responses on-wiki. If this off-wiki discussion is the source of your concern, then if you share it on-wiki others will understand it more easily.
@Cnbrb: in response to the last sentence of your initial post, user conduct is a matter for the admin noticeboard. This case hasn't reached this point.
ShakespeareFan00, if you continue to pile on more of these requests instead of waiting for the existing ones to resolve, then a sanction may be appropriate. For instance, there is no reason to to start this DR when this DR is active and covers exactly the same points. If the 1st DR closed as delete, that would be the right time to launch the 2nd one - and it would be closed off easily "per previous DR".--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: I am aware of the duplicate filing issue, and would be more than willing to close out the duplicated filings, I'd already struck out some entries in one of the earlier DR's because of this. The duplicated entries seem to have arisen due to the us of VisulFileChange on each successive category in turn. ( Visual File Change it seems can't check that something is already nominated.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: The above mentioned, I don't see duplicated images between the two categories you mention? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, some degree of common sense and basic competence is required of users. I already mentioned about this duplicate filing issue at the Admin noticeboard. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: My point here isn't a technical one to do with double-tagging. What I mean is there was no reason to start any of the DRs after you had initiated the first one to discuss a specific copyright concern. Once you have raised ONE DR to address "UK road signs may be in copyright", do not raise any further ones. The worst thing you can do is scatter the discussion across a dozen different pages - different contributors might comment at different places, even though they are all saying consistent things. The first discussion can then get a solid consensus much more easily. If its closed as "keep", it saves you having to run around tagging several hundred more files and saves the community from having to discuss (and close as keep) dozens of other cases. If its closed as "delete", again that makes discussion much easier.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Then your concern is duly understood with clarity, given that I had this 'dispersed' discussion problem arise previously when nominating media pre VFC. And anything that reduces the already large backlog on admins is presumably something you would openly support.
I wasn't planning on making any more DR's until the pending ones were resolved.
On the 'content-disupte' side of things, I am awaiting a response from some Department for Transport contacts which should hopefully clarify the situation.
I agree it would be ludicrous if road signs they weren't actually "usable" under OGL, but it would of course be nice to have this confirmed (again) officially, given that an ambiguity arose on some points. Commons has in the past not liked ambiguity, although I can't think of any recent high-profile examples. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And when filing finding I was writing things like per comments on previous DR) many times." when filing them ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you be amenable, to a standing rule about not filing "purge deletions"? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: I agree - I'm sorry if my comments gave the impression I was complaining about user conduct. To be clear, I don't wish to complain about ShakespeareFan00 personally; I believe his submissions to be made in good faith, but possibly not the best approach. I think there are issues that need to be worked out at a higher level with regard to clarifying Commons policies. The fact there is disagreement and uncertainty means that policy such as Commons:Threshold of originality needs to be made clearer. There are simply too many individual deletion requests to deal with individually. Cnbrb (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Getting back to the substance of the content/licensing issue.

On Traffic signs the previous OTRS ticket relating to this - ticket #2015063010023764, was what was being queried as to it sufficiency, in light of subsequent correspondence with another party.

[Ticket#: 2017052210016428] contains the more recent correspondence and the relevant request for clarification. These can be viewed by those with OTRS access.

The issue, is a bit technical, and it's to do with an implied right to adapt the design elements substantially, not limited to just merely shifting existing designs between different vector/raster bitmap formats with respect to the Traffic Signs Manual or Traffic Signs Image Database derived designs, and potentially use them in ways whereby downstream users from Commons would be able to in effect produce their own modified "unofficial" versions, and use them or any unofficial designs derived, in completely unpredictable ways, which may be in conflict with the original purpose, clarity and intent of the official designs use as traffic signs. (Aside: Consider for example some of the examples of 'bad' signs in this blog post - https://showmeasignblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/private-landowners-and-homemade-signs/ )

A similar consideration arises with 'Motorway' and with the pictographic symbols in the 'S' and 'T' series. This isn't necessarily an issue of copyright as such, but of additional design adaptation rights (potentially implied by their use on Commons), and the non-copyright restriction on "real-world" use which is noted on the image description pages, neither of which to date the OGL explicitly covers or allows for in a satisfactory manner. (On a side note, the license used on all traffic sign images should probably be updated to be OGL3 as soon as possible.)

On the rail sign images, the issue with the BR "Double Arrows logo" is, as has been pointed out in the DR's is that of the low threshold of originality in the UK. It is has additionally been raised, that given the dates of original publication, it may depending on it's status have in fact expired in copyright terms. Unlike a govt department, the British Railways Board was a "statutory corporation", whose works (depending on the precise terms of how it was set up and then wound up) are not automatically crown copyright. Thusly a normal full UK copyright term would potentially apply, in respect of works which the successor organizations now nominally owned or controlled. Considerations of a nature related to those expressed previously in regard to road signs above, would arise in respect of "design adaptation" rights also arise.

Commons being US based has not previously taken the issue of "design adaption rights" as seriously, given the different standard of protection these attract in the US (and with respect to typefaces especially). However, Commons is a global platform, and such considerations are important to potential re-users outside the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The TL:DR Summary points being :
  • The BR Logo is not necessarily Crown Copyright, or covered by OGL
  • Road signs have an implied "No Derivatives" clause under some circumstances.
  • There's an ambiguity about how far both can be adapted or modified.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that clearly shows your chief concern (about "design adapation") is not a problem. Non-copyright restrictions are not grounds for deletions from Commons (unless the file is itself illegal, as is the case for child pornography). {{Trademark}} is the prime example, you can't use File:Apple logo black.svg in certain contexts. The restrictions on roadside use are the direct equivalent of that. The OGL expressly includes the ability to ADAPT files. A {{Design rights}} template could be developed, to explain the impact of those restrictions on re-users.
Reading the pertinent sections of the act [11][12]: "Design right does not subsist in... surface decoration" and is infringed by "making articles to that design or by making a design document recording the design for the purpose of enabling such articles to be made." Design right is about physical objects, not pictures. A physical sign (the pole, attachment and triangular baseplate) could be protected with design rights. The picture on the sign is a form of "surface decoration" and is not protected by design right. An infringing copy of the road sign would be a physical sign which could be installed at a location, or a document explaining how to create that physical object (not just a picture of the graphic, but detailing the other aspects of the design too).
On the other hand the concern about the BR logos, whether that is the double-arrow or any of the others, are actually copyright concerns: Are the PD due to age or simplicity? If not, are they OGL? Those questions are best answered in deletion requests.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Which in respect of Working Drawings and Traffic Signs Manual, are just that
(documents which provide a technical specification on how to draw the signs, albiet based on information present in relevant current or past legislation,). An SVG file is also instructions on how to 'draw' the sign, but I concede this may be stretching this too far on a technicality.
I agree with you as to the need for a Template:Design rights template, I will open a wider discussion on this below. Would it be possible to have one for Template:Real world caution as well, (which would include things like US Govt Seals, which whilst not under a copyright restriction, do have non-copyright usage restrictions.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No. A road sign (which is a physical object you can put by a road) may be protected by design rights. But that's the entire artifact, NOT the picture on the sign. The documents tell you how to draw the picture on the sign, and no matter how detailed that doesn't tell you how to construct the sign itself. The picture is "surface decoration" and is protected by copyright but not design rights. A document infringing on the design rights would might tell you what pole to use, what material to use, how to assemble the object etc.
With regards to US seals etc that already exists - see {{Insignia}}--Nilfanion (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.
BTW You are welcome to link this discussion and the above logic in the DR's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If you agree with the above logic please withdraw the DRs which are solely about design rights. If they are still open this evening I will do the admin to consolidate them into a single discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will consider adding a note about Qualified Withdrawal. I won't close them outright because I had been previously advised, that a non-admin closure even on a withdrawal following new information, was considered bad form. There was also some additional comments/votes for deletion raised in the discussion on other grounds (such as superceed PNG versions where SVG versions now exist.)
Your offer to collapse the discussions is welcomed, and would of course naturally be appreciated.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with an earlier comment that by spreading the comments across a number of pages, the nominator has dispersed the comments. For example, here I made an observation that caused me to put forward a "Speedy Keep" vote. I also wasted an hour or so searching out the information. Martinvl (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That is duly noted. It seems I may need to take a break when this matter is resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I hear anything further from the PSI contact at the National Archives of the Department of Transport, I am effectively not going to comment further.

I get the impression that the likely outcome will be to keep some (or all) of these. I can't say agree entirely given continued doubts about the status, but don't want to argue with consensus. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've closed all of the resulting deletion discussions concerning the UK Department for Transport road signage. The various arguments presented were as follows

  1. The Transport font was protected by typographic copyright and usage of the font would infringe on the rights of the copyright holder (the same also being true for the Railway Alphabet font).
    The Copyright issue concerning the 'Transport' typeface does not exist. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is explicit that copyright protection in typefaces essentially only lasts for 25 years from the date that the first work making use of the typeface is first marketed [13]. The 'Transport' typeface has been in widespread and continuous use since 1957/58 and even if an entirely new copyright protection was somehow created (or restored) under the 1988 Act, protection on the typeface would have lapsed in 2013 (or more likely at midnight on 1 January 2014). The second issue concerning typeface copyright protection, is that even if a typeface remains protected under copyright, the usage of the typeface in the course of producing material "typing, composing text, typesetting or printing" does not constitute an infringement of the copyright of the typeface. The copyright protection on a typeface essentially exists to stop people copying the typeface and monetising plagiarised material, it does not in any way interfere with the licensing possibilities for people producing work that makes conventional use of the typeface.
  2. The Design Rights would be infringed by presenting the material on Commons
    There are several reasons this is not the case, firstly, as is clearly stated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) the 2D representation of the 3D design [14] in the Department for Transport drawings, manuals and in the images here would count as surface decoration, and would not infringe on any design rights, the same would be true for the sign itself, which remains a 2D surface decoration. Design rights, unless registered, expire a maximum of 15 years after their creation (or 10 years, if usage is made of the design in the first 5 years, so 10 years for almost all designs of sign, given usage was largely immediate). There's no evidence available that road signs and other design elements were registered - the Secretary of State for Transport currently has no active registered designs, so if any protection existed, it would have expired in the 1970s and even if protection was somehow restored by the 1988 Act, it would have expired somewhere between 1999 and 2004, however, there is an exclusion in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which suggests road signs wouldn't be eligible for design right protection in any case - design right doesn't protect features which allow an object to be constructed or assembled in a certain manner in order to perform its intended function, nor does it protect commonplace objects which road signage would certainly qualify under. There's no exception to design protection for a utilitarian item, however attention should also be drawn to the Freedom of Panorama which exists in the UK, so even if design rights were to exist for road signage, photographs of road signs in situ would be covered by the Freedom of Panorama provisions covering 3D objects and the OGL licence would extend to the surface decoration on the 3D object preventing any possible infringement from occurring.

The British Railways files, which gave rise to the Road Sign DRs, remain potentially problematic, as others have commented, but the Railway Alphabet typeface no longer enjoys copyright protection. The British Rail double arrow logo is more complex, it has a current (and valid) trademark registration assigned to the Secretary of State for Transport, and for the usage of the logo not to violate copyright in this context, the copyright would need to owned by the Secretary of State for Transport making any OGL licence perfectly valid, but this would need to be confirmed. The remaining imagery may or may not have been transferred into the ownership of the Secretary of State for Transport - it is my understanding that the active copyright, design and trademark materials that were owned by the British Railways Board at the time of privatisation and the initial franchising process passed to the Secretary of State for Transport but that some of the material may have been included in the sale of assets to Railtrack, to the freight companies EWS and Freightliner, and to the many other parties who became involved with the railway at that time.

Nick (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Justus Sustermans - Claudia de' Medici, 1626, Appartamenti reali, Pitti.jpg

Wondering if {{PD-Art}} wouldn't be more appropriate as the uploader is not the author of that painting. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 14:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Licensed-PD-Art}}, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks. I've used {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|rawphotolicense={{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} }}. Is that correct? I'm not used with PD-Art related issues. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 13:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. I added the "deathyear" argument, which PD-old-auto-1923 requires and is a bit more correct. PD-old-100-1923 would also have worked. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:BioRisk-License

This license tag is outdated. Not only did they change their url [15] but they also updated their licensing to CC BY 4.0. I'm wondering if this is retroactive so we could simply adjust our template from 3.0 to 4.0. Perhaps it would be better though to keep version 3.0 in the template and implement a parameter that will accept a number like "4" to override the standard license version for newer publications of this journal. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this upgrading a CC license requires a consent of authors who in this case retain the copyright. I, however, can not find the text of agreement that authors sign when they submit an article. So, it is not clear if they are required to consent to any future license upgrades. Ruslik (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking this. So I'd say we need to add an optional license version to the template. De728631 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
...which I have now done. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Jean de Dinteville.jpg

Another PD-Art question I have is from this new upload. I've tried to fix licensing/permission to the best of my knowledge, but National Portrait Gallery files used to be problematic in the past. If you could please review/fix it'd be good. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 14:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Everything OK for me. Yann (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Azadi tower 9.jpg

According to COM:FOP#Iran, there is no freedom of panorama for any architectural works in Iran. Can Commons accept File:Azadi tower 9.jpg this file as licensed? While there's no reason to doubt that the photo was taken by someone working for the en:Tasnim News Agency, the focus of the photo is the tower so it seems like the tower's copyright needs to be also considered. The Iranian FOP does not seem to allow any exceptions, and I don't think this is a case of COM:DM. If the Commons licensing is OK, then the non-free en:File:Azadi Tower, Tehran.jpeg uploaded locally to English Wikipedia would no longer be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is no FOP in Iran then the image should be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion. —MarcoAurelio 13:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Copyright is 30 years after publication if the work belongs to a legal personality, so than it can probably stay. If the architect holds the copyright, we can contact the architect for permission mail@amanatarchitect.com http://www.amanatarchitect.com/contact.html --Hannolans (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

New file with doubtful free-use permission

This file doesn't seem to me to be copyright free, yet it has been uploaded as such. I don't know how to propose deletion at the file page, so have done so here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it best to bring such issues here, or is there a form of speedy delete template or something similar that can be applied to files? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in such case, please create a deletion request. There is a gadget for that. See in your preferences (Gadget tab, section Maintenance tools). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

UK transport logos (again)

Given that the British Rail logos have been established as a problematic copyright area (see archived discussion above) and that Commons:Threshold of originality does not apply to UK logos, isn't it time to review all the London Underground roundels? If logos for BR and Manchester Metrolink were deleted because they were found to be non-free graphics, surely the Tube logo cannot remain on Commons? The statement on the TfL website is quite clear: "Strict rules exist about how the roundel can be implemented, and copyright exists on its reproduction. Only name/words (companies, stations etc.) already used by TfL can be written through the bar of the logo and any third party wishing to reproduce any of these logos must first seek the written authority of TfL." Doesn't sound like Commons material to me! 17:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The logo is a simple circle, was published in 1908 and Edward Johnston died more than 70 year ago. The above text seems more the trademark and not the copyright rule, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2013/09/17/london_underground_logo_a_brief_history_of_the_iconic_design.html --Hannolans (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It may be a simple circle, but it's a registered trade mark. From the same page: "the circle and bar shape of the TfL family of logos is a registered trade mark and therefore protected under the 1994 Trade Marks Act. Anyone wishing to use any of our modal roundels or other corporate logos needs to apply for permission." Cnbrb (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is a trademark, trademarks are no reason to delete on Commons. If users want to use those logos, they might have to ask for permission, depending on the use. If you want to make that explicit you can add the trademarked warning template to the logos to make that clear. --Hannolans (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
But TfL claim copyright on the roundel - it says so clearly on the TfL website. In line with recent discussions, there's a strong case for removing Tube roundels from commons too.Cnbrb (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

REPOST: Freedom of panorama in regards to architectural plans (Mexico)

I am reposting a post I made a couple of weeks ago since I did not get a response.

The pictures are of models of the new Mexico City airport- both tangible scale models and computer drawn images (posters on walls). Would these images located in the not-yet public (access wise) airport be covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama#Mexico? The pictures are from a presidential visit and were taken by an accompanying photographer- I don't know if this would affect their status. I assume pictures of the models (example 1, example 2) are okay as a similar one is on commons (File:FernandoRomero01.jpeg) (or maybe nobody has noticed a possible intelectual property violation).

How about this image- it is a computer-drawn image used as part of the model exhibits (example). I am not convinced this one would be allowed- too focused on the image and as a result, it may end up looking like it was just ripped from a concept video. My understanding is that FOP covers works like murals -original artwork that can only be found at that site. I'm not sure if computer-drawn images fit that description.

The architecture firms are Mexican and foriegn; I don't know who owns the design plans- I am assuming the Mexican government has bought them considering it is such an important infrastructure project. Does it matter for our purposes, considering FOP? Xochiztli (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, These should be OK, since they are from an official account. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Publicity photo of Lynda Carter from the Wonder Woman TV series

Is the copyright status of this image legitimate? The banner says that it's "in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice, and the rationale above that says that it lacks things like the year of first publication or the name of the copyright owner. But obviously we have an idea of when this image was published, and who the owner is/was. Apart from the fact that the photo's caption says it was published in 1976, the earliest version of the image that was uploaded to that page has ALL of that info. Is this right? Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

welcome to US copyright formalities. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States the judges historically require the (c) literally (persnickety like commons admins). the other publicity photos that were deleted were because "no publication date" [16] - and not to worry it is all historical.
here you have nice info on back of photo which says "Photo Release abc Press Relations" + "JP 8/17/76" although "for editorial use only all rights reserved" don't know why you would be incredulous. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is the reason the earlier revision was uploaded, as that has all the evidence needed to satisfy the license. The quote above the license tag is a wholesale quote from a U.S. Copyright Office circular about the former copyright notice requirements. You needed two (or three) things -- the author, the copyright symbol / word "copyright" / abbreviation thereof, and (for some types of works) the year. The copyright owner and year are on that copy, which was clearly published, but no copyright symbol. Since the third part of the requirement was not satisfied, it was published without notice before 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the procedure for "transfering" permission to place copyrighted material on the commons.

Hello. I've created the page BioPlex. The output of protein-protein interactions that are "open" on that site can be a wonderful addition to the "interactions" sections of wp articles about proteins. However, they are copyrighted to the "Gygi Lab 2016-17" at this site. I have contacted Dr. Gygi at Harvard using my personal e-mail asking if he approved of posting screen shots of the resulting protein-protein interaction networks on the commons. He replied "I don't care about posting any of these to the internet as screen shots. I believe those images should be available to you or anyone to use."

I have to believe that me telling you that isn't enough.....

So, what to do next? Should I forward the e-mail thread to someone who will guarantee my anonymity? Thank you.JeanOhm (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Commons:OTRS system is intended for this. An email with an acceptable license declaration should to be sent directly from the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Commons:Email templates gives the preferred format for this email. Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder outlines the sequence to follow to associate your screenshots with the license declaration. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sloan Digital Sky Survey "images"

A very large number of images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) have been uploaded over the years. A fairly large number have been deleted on the basis that they are licensed for non-commercial use only. This appears clearcut for images actually hosted on the SDSS website (image use policy), but less clearcut for images generated from the digital SDSS data (data use policy and similar pages for each data release). The images in question are typically generated by third-party software using digital data from the SDSS archives, possibly with additional annotations. I have just had a mass delete rejected because "data is not copyrightable" (clearly untrue, but then I'm not an intellectual property lawyer). So which is it? SDSS clearly think that their digital image data should not be used for commercial purposes, but at least one commons expert thinks otherwise. I'd really appreciate clearing this up, either to continue deleting such images or to put it in writing once and for all that they, at least images generated from the public data archives, can be used. There have been some similar discussion in the past, but about DSS and DSS2, both unrelated to SDSS, and it wasn't clear to me what the outcome was except that a lot of files got deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Link to the involved DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sloan Digital Sky Survey - Jcb (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
What is the nature of the "data"? A file like File:NGC 1262 SDSS.jpg looks like a photo. Photographs are always "data" (in particular, digital photographs are stored as tables of numbers), but they are copyrightable regardless. --ghouston (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Only human creativity is protected by copyright, indiscriminate collections of data - like SDSS database - are not. Ruslik (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
So the SDSS data use policy is bogus, and the files previously deleted can be undeleted? --ghouston (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessarily a bogus policy (and it may have different effects in different countries, as thresholds of originality differ quite a bit). It depends on the nature of the "data". If it is a binary dump of a raw photograph, that photo is probably copyrightable (presuming a human programmed it to take a picture at a certain angle at a certain time, etc.). The fact it is in "raw data" form and not a .jpg is irrelevant. If it was raw recordings from a sensor, which someone uses to make a graphic of some kind, not as sure. But if the framing and other copyrightable elements are inherent in the "data", it should still have its copyright. Data in and of itself is generally not copyrightable, but if in the middle of that data is basically a fixation of copyrightable expression, the copyright is still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Any astronomical survey like SDSS has a set of parameters agreed well in advance which are rationally selected. Then they acquire time on some large telescopes which are programmed to image portions of sky or all sky using those pre-agreed parameters. The raw data are deposited in a database. Everything is done automatically. It is difficult to say where the creativity lies. Ruslik (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"Rationally selected"? Does that preclude creativity? I think you might be surprised just how complex it is to plan such a task, and there is certainly more than one way to do it. I notice that the SDSS data use policy does not actually mention copyright. Are we discussing the right things? Does their non-commercial stipulation actually have a different basis? Lithopsian (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
If their restriction has a different basis than copyright, it would be a non-copyright restriction. It may possibly be based on a site usage agreement, but the issue there is if the uploader could be deemed as having agreed to that contract. We usually leave such questions to the uploader. But there could certainly be a copyright, still. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Some background that may or may not help. The DSS (different database, same idea, there's also DSS2) is the Digitised Sky Survey. It was originally physical photographs of the sky which were then scanned and made available as digital downloads. As I understand it, the original photography is copyrighted (there are certainly statements to that effect on various websites) and hence the digitisation of them is also (I assume) copyrighted. Welcome to the modern world where we skip a step and download telescopic views of the sky directly into digital files. SDSS stands for Sloan Digital Sky Survey (my italics) The difference in reality? None (OK, better quality). The difference to a lawyer? Maybe a lot. Lithopsian (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Gut feeling, these probably have a copyright -- there are likely many camera / telescopic settings which are programmed in -- so that selection, and framing, could still be considered creativity. However, the complexity of the setup, money expended, and effort expended do not really speak to the creativity, at least for U.S. thresholds. For example, a company who made a 3-D model of a car mostly by exact, laser-guided measurements, was ruled to basically be a slavish copy of the car, and therefore did not add anything copyrightable (Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales). The fact that it is digital photo versus analog does not make a difference. The question is how much creativity is behind that. Corel v Bridgman ruled that a straight-on photo of a painting amounted to a copy, without additional expression being added -- so the photo was not copyrightable. In that case, the framing and angle are no longer creative, since they are the obvious ones, so the lighting is about the only thing -- and really, the goal was to exactly reproduce the painting, so there was no additional copyright in the photo. Another one which has been argued is surveillance cameras -- they are still movies and/or photos, but was there really human creativity involved? Does the person who positioned the camera own an actual copyright? You can make some arguments on something like the Sky Survey -- the framing is the entire sky (not creative) and the framing of individual shots may just broken up by a predetermined grid, which may not be creative either. And the angle is basically the angle from the Earth. But... a telescope is basically a big camera, and photographs have generally had a very low threshold in the U.S., and it feels like the Sky Survey is a bit outside Corel v. Bridgman's ruling, so I would be hesitant to claim no copyright without a more solid ruling to base it on. They would be undoubtedly copyrightable in the UK, but may be less likely than even the US in Europe -- copyrightable works are supposed to "reflect the author's personality" there in order for copyright). There could be creative aspects I am unaware of, as well -- a real court case would get into those details of how it was actually created. It is those details which matter for copyrightability (and a lawyer), not if the result is digital or not. But reliance on increased automation may in fact lead to some things no longer being copyrightable, depending on the details of human involvement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There is another aspect to this. They by some reason may have a copyright for their database as a whole. However it does not mean that there is any separate copyright for individual frames. Ruslik (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
There is considerable discussion of the SDSS in the book Governing Knowledge Commons, including about the use of its data in the Galaxy Zoo project. Although I can't vouch for all their explanations, the assumption seems to be that the use of SDSS images within Galaxy Zoo required a Creative Commons Noncommercial license. The galaxy zoo copyright notice gives this license - unfortunately their link to the SDSS policy is broken but I think they intended this. Lithopsian (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we are no closer to a decision on the status of these images. So I have emailed the SDSS contact concerning the data use policy, specifically asking for clarification concerning images generated with third-party tools such as Aladin. Hopefully I will be allowed to post any reply here and we will be that much closer to resolution. At the very least we will know for certain what SDSS themselves wish the licensing status of such images to be. Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about images

Hi! I was checking over student uploaded images from the past semester and found the following images:

File:Fire house.jpg
File:Farragut housing projects.jpg
File:Vinegar Hill also known as Irishtown.jpg

The first image is a picture of a newspaper clipping dated to 1949. I don't know that this would fall within the public domain, as I seem to remember that everything post 1942 is considered to be held under copyright - prior to that most works (but not all) would be considered public domain. The newspaper itself is defunct, so this may put it in the public domain.

The second and third images are from this report on Vinegar Hill and the images were uploaded with a public domain license with the claim that the report falls within the public domain. I know that not all states put their work in the public domain, so I wanted to ask about this as well - especially as these are pictures of the book and not images taken directly from the PDF. There's also the question about whether or not the pictures that the report author (Donald Presa) took would be within the public domain as well, since there's no copyright or public domain statement listed anywhere that I can see.

Basically, my question is whether or not any of the three images should be on WC, as I'm unsure whether or not any of them would fall within the public domain. I personally discourage people from taking pictures of books unless it's of an older work (ie, old illuminated texts and first editions of pre-1900s literature), so I'm uncomfortable with these being here. I wanted to see if these images need to be removed or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! The newspaper clipping pic is a copyvio of the text within. The other two images seem to be taken from official Government documents which are not copyrightable, so are probably not violations per se. However, the Fire House photos were taken in 1996 and the photograper is identified so if he was not a Governmenty employee their upload here may be a copyright violation. Mabalu (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was never able to determine whether or not he was a government employee, but what concerns me is that this is a case of state government as opposed to federal government, as very few states release their work into the public domain. I'm also not really sure of how beneficial either image is as a whole to WC or WP, given that the images are of fairly low quality. I think I will probably open up a deletion discussion for these offhand. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a question about an image posted by a student in a different class, File:Starry night.jpg
My concern here is that this image looks to have been done as part of an art contest as seen here. The image credit is given as NASA/GSFC/MIT (NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and NASA's media content guidelines suggests that images may not be under a compatible copyright. What do you guys think about this one? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Images on NASA websites are in general "not copyrighted". Those images which are copyrighted should be explicitly marked with the copyright symbol and owner. I don't see it on this image so would assume it is free to use. Lithopsian (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05&oldid=247931583"