Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/06

Possible doll copyvios

Are these dolls by Michael Lau copyvios? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I would say so - because toys and dolls are considered copyrightable and these are modern designer toys. Mabalu (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mabalu. I hope I did this right using that script thingy: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Figures by Michael Lau Gardener. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

USDA

Transferring files from the USDA flickr stream used to automatically add Template:PD-USGov-USDA instead of the public domain mark problem template; I was wondering why this has been reversed. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

because the USDA messes up the licenses, i.e. "all rights reserved" [1]; [2]; [3] if you found a PD mark, that's what gets tagged. it would take some curation. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:SFU Logo.png

File is almost certainly not "own work" and most likely the copyright is owned by en:Simon Fraser University. However, I'm not sure if this is simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. Canada's TOO is listed as being similar to the US's so I think it should be OK, but would like other opinions first. Also, I can't seem to find an official source for the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that it is an official logo? I can not find anything similar on their website. On the other hand I found this, which is again slightly different. I think the user can have drawn a logo based on some description. So, it can really be a self-work. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Ruslik. I assumed it was the official logo simply because it was being used in an article about the university's hockey team. Teams sometimes change their logos so I thought perhaps that might be the case here. Anyway, if it's not the team's logo and never has been the team's logo, then maybe it shouldn't be used. That, however, is more of context than copyright question and something which is probably more suited for discussion on the Wikipedia article's talk page. This did not seem like "own work" to me but if it is, then it's fine for Commons and thus fine by me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be their athletics logo -- http://athletics.sfu.ca . Canadian copyright started as similar as UK, but after NAFTA, they are now somewhere between the UK and the US -- there does need to be some creativity. For the U.S., I'd say the lettering is OK and the maple leaf seems to be a standard symbol. The curves are where it might nudge over the line, but it'd be close. I would probably lean delete, given the curves and that Canada may be a bit more likely to rule it copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the file should be at least renamed (to 'SFU athletic logo'). It has a misleading name now. Ruslik (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Pixabay user Skeeze

I've noticed that several images from Pixabay account Skeeze originate from elsewhere. File:Muffin-713096.jpg and [4] are from US federal agencies, and I listed File:First choice.jpg and File:European-rabbits-1006621.jpg for deletion as they appear to be from non-Pixabay sources. And looking at the images on the account, which is an unusual mix of nature photos, still life and model shots taken on different cameras around the world, I think there are enough red flags to warrant reviewing all images from this account and blacklisting it. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see images:

File:Jackson Lake Reflection.jpg

File:Mount Steller (Aleutian Range).jpg

File:Pray Lake.jpg

File:Vintage-391453 1280.jpg

File:Sailboats-696079.jpg

File:Tornado-572504 1280.jpg

For what it's worth, the above images are all public domain, US federal government photos. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Android6.0.1.png

Can the underlying imagery in this screenshot be released by the uploader as "own work"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Only if the uploader owns a satellite imaging company. Ruslik (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Ruslik. The file has been nominated for deletion by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe copyright

I uploaded File:British South Africa Police.jpg copied from the English Wikipedia because I believe that it fulfils template:PD-Zimbabwe as the emblem of the British South Africa Police in Southern Rhodesia made in 1960. Could someone more experienced on commons than I have a quick look and confirm that the copyright has now expired? The C of E (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It may be "It is a artistic, literary, or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication". Ruslik (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering my last few URAA-related DRs I'm hesitant to ask, but {{PD-Zimbabwe}} does have a big disclaimer stating that this would only by PD in the United States if it was published before 1946 without a copyright registration in the US. So the question arises, how do we know that this particular rendition is from 1960? If it was older, we could perpaps even claim PD-1923. De728631 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the emblem used prior to 1960, with the next version bearing the symbol that was uploaded. But I do believe as Ruslik said, it falls under that said category as the BSAP were governed by the government in 1960. The C of E (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Daniel Cande

Hi, The National Library of France (BNF) initially said that these files are in the public domain. Now the license was changed, and they are now shown as "specific conditions of use". Should we consider that the BNF made a mistake, or can we consider that the public domain is irrevocable? Many files used in many places are affected, so more opinions requested. Some of the images were license reviewed. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

'Public domain' is not a license. Therefore it can be revoked. However they may have made a mistake in stating that the files are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication cannot be revoked – if it could, we wouldn't accept it as compatible with Commons:Licensing. See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode, sections 2 and 3. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

More information is available (see in the DR for details). The important thing is that the BNF acquired the rights as well as the content, and these files are still available on Europeana under a public domain mention. The important conclusion is that, for this kind of images, we needs a license review. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Bank of Ireland 5 pound note 2008.jpg

Almost certainly not "own work", but I'm not sure as to whether certain images of currency might be public domain of some kind. According to COM:CUR#Ireland, Irish currency seems to be protected by copyright, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bank of Ireland is headquartered in the Republic of Ireland, but this note is denominated in Pounds Sterling (UK currency) and distributed in Northern Ireland. The note appears to say "Belfast" on the front. It seems likely that UK copyright law applies. There is an older Bank of Ireland Sterling note image in English Wikipedia at w:en:File:Bank of Ireland sterling 5 .jpg, with a non-free media rationale. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

COM:CUR#United Kingdom says that Northern Irish banknotes are protected by copyright, so it appears that this image is not ok whichever jurisdiction it comes under. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated this for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran FOP, 143 files to be looked at

Hi everyone. I've been trawling through ~1,400 images from Tasnim an Iranian news agency for the past week and have identified 143 images which are potentially freedom of panorama violations.

As I'll be disappearing to travel soon, I wondered if anyone would mind looking at the list, researching the buildings to find their age, judging whether the depicted video screens are de minimis, etc, and then doing 1 mass deletion request. With respect to buildings, recommended reading is this discussion on the most recent DR of an Irani building (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azadi tower 9.jpg).

The images can be viewed here: User:Seb26/Tasnim FOP need evaluation.

seb26 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How to attribute

I'd like to upload an image that is a composite of a number of images stored here. Most have no copyright issues (e.g. old NASA photo), but two have attribution requirements:

1x Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International[5]
1x Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported[6]

Just wondering where, and how, to attribute when I upload. I couldn't see anywhere obvious when I did a test run. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Think I've got it: use the credit line template. Couldn't fit more than one entry in the Summary box, so I included them all (including the PD ones, just for completeness) under the Licencing heading.[7] Bromley86 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The {{Credit line}} template is not used for attributing foreign authors but for the credit you wish others to write when they re-use your own work. I don't think there is a standardised way to attribute the authors for your source images, but I use to make a bullet list in the |author= field of the summary, and put {{Derived from}} into the |source= field. See here. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

correct status  ?

Some one pl have a look @ these. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.195.61.210 (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as "no permission". --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Screenshots of free programs – guidelines needed

I noticed File:LyX15.png was released as {{PD-self}} and that Commons:Screenshots#Software gives very little guidance about how to license the derived work, attribute the original authors and conform to the free licence in general.

I suppose most people think we are fine as soon as all elements of the screenshot are free. Conforming to the licence seems however to be really convoluted. I suppose a GPL program can use libraries and graphics with other licences, and the list of authors is usually long.

We should have a page with best practices. I do think authors of free software are generally satisfied with a best effort approach, but current practice is hardly best effort.

--LPfi (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You can use {{Free screenshot}} to indicate that the software is freely licensed, and it's really only the licence of the software package that we need to know, because the various libraries, graphics etc should be included in the overall licence. E.g. GPL would apply for the LyX image you mentioned. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Likely not a compatible copyright

Can someone look at these files and the copyright for them?

Both files were uploaded with the idea that this statement gave it permission to be used on Wikipedia: "If you want to use photos from my site on a website of your own, you may do so without prior permission if the site does not belong to a commercial/for-profit/incorporated enterprise, if you give credit, and if you include a link back to my Near Southeast site."

However a look at the full policy on image usage shows that the section goes on to say "Commercial/for-profit/incorporated enterprises may not use my photos in any medium (including online) without payment and/or obtaining a license agreement."

This gives me the impression that these images likely do not fall within the guidelines here - what do you guys think and should these be deleted? I'm going to tag Uptan since they uploaded the images. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. User:Uptan who uploaded the images 'may' be Jacqueline Dupree using a pseudonym but I doubt it by looking at Special:Contributions/Uptan they seem incongruous (one was take on a iPhone). I suggest putting all of Uptan images up for 'speedy' and let the up-loader refer-back, rather than us argue each one individually. A quick line to JD via [8] might help to clarify matters. Mention we take copyright very seriously etc. Also, if she would like to contribute she can bring examples of her work to a World-wide audience. P.g.champion (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Update. Uptan is certainly not JD the photographer but a student leaning “how to become a Wikipedia editor.” His name appears at the bottom of the list here: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/American University/Wikipedia and Public Knowledge (Spring 2017). Also, User:JmtAU2017/sandbox might as well be deleted too -as school has finished and they have packed up and gone home. P.g.champion (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Have now placed them all up for 'speedy delete' review as non of these images appears contestable from closer inspection. P.g.champion (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone know where this is from?

I found another possible problematic image, but I don't read or speak Russian to know exactly what I'm looking at. The image in question is File:Novosti.png, but I'm not sure if it's a newspaper clipping or what - can anyone shed some light on this? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• On a side note, is there an easy template I can use to have people check over something? I know that there's one for Flickr - is there a general one? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  The generic version of the {{flickrreview}} tag is {{licensereview}}, but both of those are intended for cases where there is an external source link provided. It's just a request for a trusted user to confirm that the file is available under a free license at the stated source, in case the source disappears at a later date.

  Judging by the Google cache of the description for the file in question, Prosvetateslic claimed to have personally created the content in question entirely on their own. In such cases, it is usually best to start a deletion discussion. Alternatively, if you think the file is of such a nature that verified written permission from the copyright holder is required, you can tag the file as missing evidence of such permission using {{subst:npd}} and then following the instructions in the resulting template to notify the uploader. If the file is an obvious copyright violation, just tag it as {{copyvio}} and notify the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, from your last two posts you seem to be doing all right posting them here.File:Novosti.png has now been flagged for speedy too. I caution about looking for short cuts. Templates can easily be over used and abused. Commons:Deletion policy contains all you need to know (and we don't rely on any more than that ourselves). P.g.champion (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pikachu (28762224560).jpg

Can this be licensed as {{Cc-by-2.0}} per COM:TOYS? It's not really a case of de minimis and although Japan treats toys ultilitarian objects, I wonder if where the photo was taken matters. Also, the last paragraph of COM:TOYS states as follows: "When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country." Would this be considered to be PD in the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it appears to fail the normal interpretation of de minimis, though a larger view of a shop with these toys in it might. Could you provide a good reference that supports that view that Japanese IP law does not protect toys, I'm not aware of it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: COM:TOYS says "The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[9] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright." -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)‎

Old version of "Columbus Crew Logo.svg" is copyrighted

Hey, maybe there's a better way to request this; not sure. The file File:Columbus Crew Logo.svg does seem to be correctly licensed -- right now it's tagged PD-textlogo and that seems right to me. However, there's an old version of the image in the file history, and that version is definitely not PD-textlogo. Could someone please delete that version from the file history? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

File:SoulOfTheHarvest.jpg

I don't think this can be licensed as "own work" based upon what is given for the source. Wouldn't most traiding cards or game cards are protected by copyright not only for the imagery they might show, but also for the text of the card? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only does it appear very dubious, there is an image on this card on Amazon [10] where a copyright declaration is visible at the bottom edge. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated this for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. @Marchjuly: Wizards of the Coast owns copyright in the basic card designs, mana symbols, artwork, and flavor text, and is known to actively protect those copyrights. - Revent^talk 23:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this Revent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf public domain?

Are documents submitted to the congressional record automatically public domain, regardless of the author (James Comey) not currently being employed by the federal government? 77.66.112.90 19:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

File was released by the Senate Intelligence Committee which falls under Public Domain.--Stemoc 23:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what the Senate Intelligence Committee releases; work of private individuals outside employment by the federal government is copyrighted by them. I don't know if there's anything else going on, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I really do think the copyright on this is owned by James Comey unless there is a law that dictates that submission of material to the federal government transfers ownership. The Senate has submitted excerpts from books into the record in the past, and that did not transfer the copyright to my knowledge. At the very least the current PD template is simply incorrect, James Comey is no longer employed by the government. Does anyone here happen to be familiar with this peculiar arena of copyright? Can someone ping them perhaps? 77.66.12.7 04:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a deletion tag to the page. At least a sysop can make the decision then. 77.66.12.7 04:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

NOT owned by Comey. Once submitted as public testimony before United States Congress, becomes public domain. Lawsuit filings are different. Testimony becomes public domain. Sagecandor (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, can you link us to the copyright law that states this? 77.66.12.7 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Extemporaneous speech is not copyrighted. I don't know of anything that makes an exception for testimony submitted in a permanent format like writing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that is correct. Comey drafted his written statement, as a private individual, prior to testifying. He owned the copyright in it at the time he wrote it, and there is no evidence that he either released it to the public domain or transferred it's copyright to the federal government. I have opened a DR. - Revent^talk 23:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about Creative Commons licenses

Sorry- I am not experienced and it is a bit confusing. I am working on updating the yellow-throated miner page and I found a picture on flickr with a creative commons license that I thought would be helpful:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sunphlo/9135253442

I contacted the user to confirm that she was happy if I posted it on wikipedia and she was:

Hi Alison, I would be delighted to have my photos used for such an admirable purpose. I am very happy to have my photos used to educate and help our understanding of and how best to look after our natural world. Good luck with your work, Kind regards Julie Burgher

So I uploaded it, but I did not see the option for the same creative commons license she seems to have so I selected what I thought was the closest one, but my image has this ominous message:

"This recently uploaded image was originally posted to Flickr by julie burgher at https://flickr.com/photos/55310085@N06/9135253442. It has been reviewed on 2017-06-11 06:45:28 by FlickreviewR, who found it to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-nd-2.0, which isn't compatible with the Commons. It is unknown whether the license above was ever valid. Reviewers/Admins: This file may be deleted after the uploader is notified using == An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:Yellow-throatedMiner Group-JulieBurgher.jpg ==

---

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Yellow-throatedMiner Group-JulieBurgher.jpg, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

AllisonDRoberts (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)"

So obviously I have done something wrong. Did I select the wrong license or is her license not acceptable on wikipedia? How can I correct it since it doesn't look like users can remove images?

The latter: -ND- means “no derivatives” meaning the image can’t be modified or incorporated into other works, which makes it non-free as far as we’re concerned. The easiest solution is for the photographer to change the licence to one we accept, i.e. remove the NC condition—assuming she is willing—otherwise we would need her to send a consent letter through COM:OTRS (on which page there’s a sample form).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed at source. No further action needed. --Fæ (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the commons summary process. they allow SA but not ND. i see the license has been changed at flickr. good job. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Belize Bird Rescue logo

Hello, I'm curious why my own logo Belize Bird Rescue logo used in my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize_Bird_Rescue has been deleted from wikimedia, even though I specified I'm an owner of the logo?

Thank you in advance for restoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilibeak (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This log entry has the comment "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: © 2004 - 2017 Belize Bird Rescue All Rights Reserved". This indicates that a copyright declaration for this image has been found, most likely on a webpage that contains the logo, possibly this webpage. Alternatively the copyright declaration could be incorporated in the logo itself. This copyright declaration is incompatible with Wikipedia Commons. If you own the rights to the logo then you can probably release it under an acceptable license, but you would need to use the Commons:OTRS mechanism to confirm that you have authority to do so. An alternative approach might be to upload the logo to English Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale Verbcatcher (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you have re-uploaded the image to File:BBR logo.png. Re-uploading a deleted image is frowned on, and often results in its speedy deletion with a warning from an administrator. You have declared that this logo does not meet not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. The Belize legal system appears to be based on common law, so see Commons:Threshold of originality#Common law countries. As this logo incorporates an image of a bird it is unlikely to meet this test. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Waxell - Stellersche Seekuh.jpg

Does anyone know the source for File:Waxell - Stellersche Seekuh.jpg? The link's dead and I tried the home page of the link but I can't find anything on that Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What about https://web.archive.org/web/20120309194843/http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/cont_NMACN/nm_lavacamarina.php ? --Achim (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Unicredit logos

• File:BankAustria Logo.png
• File:UniCredit Bank AG HypoVereinsbank Logo 2010.png
• File:Unicredit logo.jpg
• File:Unicredit rus logo.gif

Unicredit logos are copyrighted and thus they should be deleted from Commons. They could be uploadad on Wikipedias allowing fair use, such as en.wiki (e.g. here and here).--Carnby (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Veranstaltungslocation unter antikem Kreuzgewölbe.jpg

Is it a problem if the exif-metadata states a copyright remark of a business? --Grim (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. The same agency is credited as having designed this location's web site (not to mention the promotional approach). I have tagged the file for missing permission. De728631 (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Grim (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Australian photo c. 1870

https://www.hordern.com/pages/books/3910398/australian-theatre-barry-sullivan/carte-de-visite-portrait-of-the-actor-barry-sullivan

How can I evaluate the copyright status of this photo? Also, if it's usable, do you know how I can link the front and reverse for Commons? Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I gather the proper tag is PD-old-50-1923, so I withdraw the request. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-Australia}} is also relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Prince William of Gloucester.jpg

Photo of en:Prince William of Gloucester taken from Flickr and licensed as {{Cc-by-2.0}}. The Flickr licensing was verified by a bot, but I am wondering if it also needs to be verified that this isn't an unintentional case of Flickr washing. If the Commons file is OK, the non-free en:File:WilliamofGloucester.jpg would no longer be needed locally on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks wrongly licensed. The 4 September 2014 date is definitely wrong as w:en:Prince William of Gloucester died in 1972. The image was uploaded to Flickr by the lost gallery, which does not sound like a photographer, and the other photographs in this Flickr account are mostly not of the same style or period. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Verbcatcher. The licensing does seem questionable and it might be just someone mistakenly claiming its their own work on Flickr. It's possible, I guess, that this might be PD for some reason considering it is of a prince and there is also this PD File:Prince William of Gloucester visiting Tywyn 2 (1549704).jpg, but I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that there is a "public domain rule for princes", if anything they would have more protection rather than less. File:Prince William of Gloucester visiting Tywyn 2 (1549704).jpg is from the National Library of Wales and was uploaded by their Wikipedian in Residence, so its licensing should be reliable. I have nominated File:Prince Henry with his son, William.jpg for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion caused by my last post Verbcatcher. When I mentioned that he was a prince, I didn't mean that photographs of princes are in the public domain just because they are photographs of princes, but rather that princes/royal family members tend to be highly public persons who are likely photographed a lot when they are out and about. The army photo might be PD for another reason since many royal family members have served in the military and military-ish photos (for example, File:Britain's Prince Edward, right, shakes hands with U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Deale, the commander of the 451st Air Expeditionary Wing, at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan Dec. 20, 2011 111220-F-XH170-474.jpg) seem to be possible candidates for PD. More would be need to be known about the original source (I don't think its that Flickr account) of the image, however, for that to be determined. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you mean something like {{PD-UKGov}}. The page claims that it was taken when Prince William was a schoolboy at Eton, which he left in 1960. There is no adequate reason to assume that the photograph was taken by the UK Government, even if the other requirements could be established. It could have been taken by another schoolboy at Eton, but this is unlikely to have been the Flickr user who assigned the licensing. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A PD-Gov template of some kind is a possibility, but I think it would have to be clearly the case before the licensing can be converted as such. The original source of the image would need to be found and PD clearly established. Otherwise, I don't think Commons should keep this image per COM:PCP because the Flickr license seems actually to be an unintentional case of Flickr washing. This likely needs further sorting out via COM:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Botev Plovdiv training base 2014.jpg

Greetings!

I am not sure which licence I should provide for the file. A pilot named Valeri Shopov took this photo and shared it in his Facebook profile. From the information I have, he then shared it to some news websites. I saw the photo in one of them. I wrote an email to the website team asking them for permission to upload the image to Wikipedia, and they granted me. But now I do not know which licence I should put, should I ask the website team again? I have included the author's name and the source (the news website). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divpatok (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Replied at Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:Botev Plovdiv training base 2014.jpg. Please don't crosspost. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

James Hetfield copyright

I'm questioning the copyright status of file James_Hetfield_2015_Rock_In_Rio_Las_Vegas.jpg. The Commons page claims it to be free to use provided that proper attribution is given. However, the author is "unknown" and source doesn't contain any licensing or author info. Someone more familiar with Commons could investigate more. The uploaders history in Commons is also quite short which rings some bells. /Matkijalintu (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Short but instructive: [11]. The talk page too: [12]. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This looks very suspicious. The uploader User:Brymzanthony has a history of copyright violations [13]. I haven't found a smoking gun with a Google image search. I suspect that this is a scan from a magazine or a book, because the image is less sharp than the resolution would allow and there appears to be some patterning. The metadata is "Special instructions FBMD0f0007790300005a230000437000007b8300004997000060cf000020280100062f0100". This site suggests that this is a Facebook tracking code, indicating that the image may have been on Facebook before being posted here.

The composition of the picture suggests that it was taken from a point not accessible to audience members. This suggests indicates an official photographer, who would be unlikely to licence the image in this way.

The page gives the source as https://imgur.com/u8vbwc9 and the author as "unknown", Imgur is an image sharing website. This prompts me to question on what basis Brymzanthony has applied this license, which is not on the Imgur page. This licence requires that "the copyright holder is properly attributed", which makes no sense if the author is unknown. You cannot credit an unknown author, so it is impossible to meet the terms of the license. I think this is sufficient for nomination for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How to credit BioPlex images?

Hello again. I intend to upload many images from the BioPlex website at Harvard Medical School at http://bioplex.hms.harvard.edu/ The searchable page is at http://bioplex.hms.harvard.edu/bioplexDisplay/index.php At the bottom of that page, you can see © Gygi Lab. In response to my request to put these images on the commons, they made this copyright and licensing statement.

I have uploaded a first example image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BioPlexCUX1c.jpg

I'm unsure if I have given enough credit, etc. One alternative I considered was crediting The BioPlex Team as a group, by just including that URL as the authors. Could someone please check this file info and tell me if it is OK or if I should do something different in the future? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This question is a follow-up from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05#What is the procedure for "transfering" permission to place copyrighted material on the commons.

On what basis have you assigned {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}? The BioPlex website has "© Gygi Lab 2016-17". You have indicated that Dr. Gygi is willing for screenshots to be posted on Commons, but he should specify the licence for this to OTRS.}}

However, it might be possible to assign {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-chem}} to this image. My knowledge of biochemistry is inadequate to reach an opinion on whether these apply here. This was discussed for another scientific diagram at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05#Simple diagram from a non-free source, perhaps User:Ruslik0 or User:Animalparty can help us here too. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If the attribution chosen by the licensor is to "Gygi Lab", then that's the attribution that must be used to comply with the license. If you want, I suppose you can add a link to the team page somewhere on the Commons description page, as long as you make sure that it can't be confused with the attribution and that it remains clear to any reader that the attribution is to "Gygi Lab". -- Asclepias (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

JeanOhm, I apologise for not reading your question in sufficient detail. I see that you have linked to a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} declaration on the BioPlex website. However, {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-chem}} may be preferable if they apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

JeanOhm, in reply to your question, the "© Gygi Lab" notice suggests that Gygi Lab is the appropriate body to credit, with a link to https://gygi.med.harvard.edu/. I would put

• Author - Gygi Lab at Harvard Medical School

The list of people at your proposed link to The BioPlex Team is liable to change as their personnel change. The link I propose may be more stable. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I see what you've changed on the file, including how to link to wp articles! Unless anybody objects, I'll mimick that structure for future images. @Verbcatcher: Actually, I think the personell of the Gygi lab and the BioPlex team will both be very fluid in the future. JeanOhm (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia logos

File:Uncyclopedia.png and it's numerous derivatives in Category:Uncyclopedia are marked as PD or CC-BY-SA. However, the source is CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 (see page bottom). Did I miss something important? --Яй (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You can look at this, which is mentioned in the history of the file. Ruslik (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

More Europeana queries

Came across this File:Crinolette V&AMuseum.jpg and while the Europeana Fashion Project has indeed marked it as a CC by 4.0, I do note that on the V&A's official page for the object, no such clearance is provided. While I do believe the V&A indeed donated their images to the Europeana project, I do question whether they endorsed a simultaneous release into the public domain. Yes, the V&A DO allow you to download an image, but they do not explicitly say that said image may be freely used, and at the bottom of the page is a copyright notice. While I do think it's probably OK that this file is on Commons, even with the Europeana watermark removed, I do have to ask whether there may be cause for concern here?

I've discussed the Europeana project before back in 2015, in which the opinion given then was that even though the material had been released as "free use," it was not really valid for Commons use. I see another Europeana discussion here and there's a possibly relevant ongoing deletion discussion too. If the site claims free use, but the official website of the institution implies another story, should we give credence to the institution's lack of release, even though the institution may well have permitted Europeana to use the images under these licenses and relicense them accordingly? Mabalu (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Europeana is an aggregator site, with no separate guarantee of the license being correct as Europeana do no assessment. As with any aggregator, to validate the license, there has to be a record of the original release that can be verified. For Commons uploads, contributors can start with the Europeana catalogue, but they should refer back to a true source record (in this case the V&A) and quote the license from the source; and preferably upload directly from the source. In this case I cannot work out what the legally required attribution that the Europeana page claims ought to be, certainly not Europeana, and we have no idea who the photographer is.

I'm actually horrified to see that the Europeana source image has an ugly watermark on it, with Europeana promoting itself. This and the fact that the only image available is a pathetic 450 × 600 pixels when the V&A makes a "non-commercial" version available to the public at 1,875 × 2,500 with no watermarks, it's little better than spam. Having met with V&A staff in the past to discuss release projects, I would be amazed if the V&A agreed in writing to have their collections reused in this promotional way for another organization. Putting it up for deletion as confusing and unreliable. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crinolette V&AMuseum.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a few more V&A uploads from the same source to the nomination and an interesting one from the MoMU where they actually do mention Europeana on the museum page, but the link is to a "retired license" page and the status is now unknown. Mabalu (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick note: while they share the same overarching 'brand name', the "Europeana Fashion" project is one which was built and run as a separate consortium. See[14]. That specific project has now concluded and the content (photos etc) are integrated into the main Europeana portal as a 'collection'[15] This would help to explain why some of the content/policies/URLs might be inconsistent with other material you might have seen on Commons also uploaded via Europeana. I'll send an email to the Europeana Fashion coordinators letting them know about this specific discussion. Sincerely, Europeana GLAMwiki Coordinator Wittylama (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Image obtained trhough editing a file that belongs to W.Commons

I would like to use a file that belongs to Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Berlin_%C3%9Cbersichtsplan.png

This file contains the image of a map of Berlin, and I would like to edit it, in order to show which parts of it correpond to Medieval Berlin.

My questions:

Am I allowed to do it?

When asked "Where is the work from?", what must I answer?

Which licence or copyright is appropriate for such a file?

Tank You for answering,

Piero Caracciolo (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Reuse. Ruslik (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I had written a more detailed reply before Ruslik responded. Subject to Commons:Reuse, my advice is:

Am I allowed to do it?

Yes. File:Karte Berlin Übersichtsplan.png is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL). Both licenses allow derivative works.

In my view you should also check that the licence is not obviously wrong. ODbL is correct because the file is derived from OpenStreetMap, which is licensed under ODbL. I do not know whether the additional cc-by-sa-2.0 is valid.

When asked "Where is the work from?", what must I answer?

I suggest "Own work, derived from File:Karte Berlin Übersichtsplan.png, ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap rendered with Maperitive". It would be helpful to add your file to other versions in the source file, and put the source file in other versions in your file.

Which licence or copyright is appropriate for such a file?

You should apply the same licenses as the original file, that is {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} and {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}. The source file has additional licensing text in German ("Sie dürfen das Bild zu den folgenden Bedingungen nutzen:"). I don't understand German, but Google Translate indicates that this has a similar meaning to the ODbL license. I have looked at a few other files with this license (listed here), and these to not have this additional text. I suggest you do not include it.

Verbcatcher (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Some categories

An anon user I stumbled upon in a different matter (to be polite) did create a few subcats of Category:Maintenance data structures some time ago:

• Category:Chinese law-related restrictions
• Category:German law-related restrictions
• Category:North Korean law-related restrictions
• Category:Russian law-related restrictions
• Category:Saudi Arabian law-related restrictions
• Category:Singaporean law-related restrictions
• Category:South Korean law-related restrictions
• Category:Ukrainian law-related restrictions

I'd like to hear some opinions whether or not these cats can be treated as useful or necessary. Thank you. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:EdictGov-India

I'm not sure if this should just be nominated for deletion, but I wanted to raise it here first. How is this an acceptable license tag here if derivative works are not permitted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I think this is OK. The important point is that derivative works should not be attributed to the gouvernent of India. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: So the view is that "reproduction or publication" does encompass derivative works? I just wonder if OTRS would accept this sort of language coming from a copyright holder (and think probably not). I started thinking about this after seeing a text article in Wikipedia about a court case that was in part adapted from the language of the court case itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I think you are questioning the interpretation of this phrase "the reproduction or publication of certain edicts of the Government of India are deemed not to be infringement of copyright according to Indian Copyright Act, 1957" to be a public domain tag from the government. I think Commons is interpreting it this way.

I agree that OTRS would not accept this kind of language but OTRS is stricter with what it accepts from individuals than what it will take from large institutions like a government. The standard is the same, but OTRS assumes individuals are less thoughtful about what they say and demands that they use higher specificity in their word choice to prove understanding. From individuals OTRS demands more than the absolute minimal statement. In the case of the government, Commons assumes that the government's statements have been more carefully and thoughtfully made, so if they pass the minimal standard, that is good enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Looking at how the copyright statute is structured, anything other than "reproduction or publication" of the edicts/etc is a copyright violation. ("Reproduction or publication" is carved out as an exception to the general rule.) Is the creation of a derivative work the "reproduction or publication" of an edict? (To make things more concrete, is the prior version of this article that incorporated a lot of language from the text of the case a "reproduction or publication" of the case?) I don't think so. I think assuming that the words "reproduction or publication" were thoughtfully chosen only magnifies the problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I do not think the term "derivative work" was used in 1950s India, and perhaps it was not widely used elsewhere either at that time. This license does allow "translation" and it does describe that adaptations of "literary, dramatic or musical work". "Translations" and "adaptations" sounds to me like that covers almost any kind of derivative work which anyone might have imagined needed to be addressed at that time. I can agree that the situation is not clear. If you are reading about a MySpace case in India which interpreted this 1957 law then you probably are understanding more than me. I only read popular news about copyright and I follow Indian culture a bit. There is a belief that blocks of text from textbooks are not copyrightable whereas in the United States copyright is imagined to be stricter. I feel that it is likely that in India some concepts of copyright are much different but I am not sure where the line is. I would not be surprised either way, if the government did allow or did not allow the kind of reuse Commons does. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Reviewing the statute in more detail, I think that I am wrong. (BTW, this act has been amended at least as recently as 1994.) "Adaptation" is defined to mean "in relation to any work, any use of such work involving its re-arrangement or alteration". And "literary works" under Indian law "are not confined to works of literature in the commonly understood sense, but must be taken to include all works expressed in writing, whether they have any literary merit or not." (See Agarwala Publishing House vs Board Of High School....) So the part of the statute stating "The provisions of sub-section (1) [stating that "reproduction or publication" is not infringement] shall apply to the doing of any act in relation to ... the adaptation of a literary ... work as they apply in relation to the work itself" seems to encompass all derivative works. I don't know what the warning about derivative works is doing on the template, but I'll leave it there for now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I've kept thinking about this, and now I'm not sure I was wrong. (And I think I understand the derivative-works template disclaimer more.) One can either think of the statute as barring the creation of certain classes of derivative works, or as requiring disclaimers on certain derivative works. The former would run afoul of COM:L, but the latter seems not much different from an attribution requirement or other non-copyright types of restrictions. Anyways, I'm not going to take on nominating the template for deletion. I have some concerns but will leave the issue for others to raise if they want. Regardless, I don't think the use of the text in the article I mentioned is in fact problematic. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: This conversation is approaching the formation of a legal opinion. The Wikipedia community forms legal opinions sometimes, as does the WMF separately. I think you should feel empowered to state one if you wish. In the past, I have talked with WMF grant funders about them providing funds so that a group of Wikipedians could hire a particular team of experts to write a legal opinion usable in the context of Wikimedia Commons. Although ultimately we did not follow through, I think that it could have happened, and that in general, the Wikimedia community encourages people to ask questions and find consensus with experts. This particular issue is far beyond me as my expertise stops with amateur wiki discussion, but if you decide that you want to go further somehow, then message me sometime and maybe I can give you leads to others who would talk more. Thanks for raising all this on the talk page. Eventually, if anyone goes further, then I expect they will find this discussion and use it to guide further decisions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I want to note that (even though I'm a lawyer) I'm not providing an "opinion" or legal advice here. Of course, I'm not an Indian lawyer (or a lawyer who deals routinely in copyright issues), and these are just some preliminary musings and relate more to Commons policy than whether anyone has infringed any copyright. Re getting legal opinions on copyright, that is an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure exactly what concrete benefit it would offer Wikimedia/Wikipedia. It is my understanding that CDA 230 already protects Wikimedia/Wikipedia re: copyright infringement claims. (If it did not, I imagine that getting an opinion could be useful to ensure that any infringement was innocent as opposed to willful, which have different types of damages.) Anyways, I'll leave that question to people who are more knowledgeable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: Indeed, IMO, you were correct, except when you said that you were wrong. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it legal to use CC-BY-SA 3.0 in GPLv3 program?

I found that CC-BY-SA 4.0 is usable in GPLv3 programs, unfortunately I failed to find clear information whatever I can use CC-BY-SA 3.0 images as asset in GPLv3 licensed program. Is somebody aware about legality of this situation? 78.11.205.45 07:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Imho, "usable" in this case does not exclude CC version 3.0 or any other free images. For CC 4.0 only it means, however, that the user of the software package just needs to observe the GPLv3 terms and conditions instead of adhering to the CC terms as well. If you combine GPLv3 with other content though, you will have to declare any and all licenses involved need to observe both GPLv3 and CC license terms. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not in general how the GPL works; if you use it on a piece of code, it needs to cover all the derivative work and no other restrictions can be added to the derivative work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Assets, IMO, that are in a general purpose format and are loaded and displayed by the program (instead of compiled in or linked in in any way) probably aren't derivative works of a program and don't need to be in a compatible format; YMMV; IANAL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png

Does anyone know the source for File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png? I tried asking the author on the Russian Wikipedia but it seems s/he's inactive Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The original uploader did not specify the source although the file is definitely not their work. On the other hands the contours of landmasses are not copyrighted and the map contains only simple textual descriptions. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Author vs Uploader

Concerning File:I'timād-ud-Daulah Tomb.jpg and File:Agra Fort (Moti Masjid).jpg: these two photographs surely look PD-old to me, so copyvio-wise everything should be fine. The uploader however, also claims to be the author, which is most unlikely considering the age. Additionally, the first image (including all its faults and creases) can also be found here at a higher resolution. What is the proper course of action here? Are there any template messages applicable to this situation where author≠uploader despite the claim? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

This is wrong: uploading a file never makes the uploader an author. The file descriptions should be corrected. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the description is incorrect, but how should it be corrected when the real author is unknown to me? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If the author is really unknown, you can use {{Unknown}}, but copying the files from a random website where the author is no mentioned is not OK, and doesn't make the author unknown. At the very least, we need the date when the picture was taken. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

biting newbie uploaders is not OK. we need to demonstrate image provenance scholarship, as below. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Agra Fort (Moti Masjid).jpg may be from here, where it is captioned "Another view, perhaps by Bourne", referring to Samuel Bourne (1834–1912). The site is maintained by Frances W. Pritchett, Professor Emerita of Modern Indic Languages of Columbia University, who is likely to be a reliable expert.[16][17] A very similar image on the same page is dated to the 1880s. I think we can safely conclude that this image is public domain due to its age. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, these images are probably OK, but the current description is not: no source, wrong date, wrong author, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Yann (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for setting an example. Now I know what to do when coming across such cases ☺ --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I upload a publicity photo of a band, if so what license?

Hi, I emailed my favorite band's publicity person about better Wikipedia - Wikicommons pictures. I specifically said I was worried about copyright. He emailed back and said I could use the pictures at bighassle.com. I see the photos I would like to use have the photographers name as a credit. Typically these photos appear in newspapers, online promotions etc.

I would like to upload these using a creative commons license, give credit to both the photographer and to the bighassle.com page (publicity person's site) were I got them. I could reference the person who gave me permission.

Got into trouble before and every since been reluctant to upload any non government photos. Thanks. Rcollman (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

might want to email the com:OTRS boilerplate to the photographers. they will want a CC license release, not a general "permission". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If the publicity agent (bighassle.com) paid the photographer for the rights, so that others could to use the pictures, then what is the photographers and the agents rights? Guess I will send the com:OTRS to the agent and hopefull I can directly contact the photographer. Rcollman (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the copyright holder that needs to contact OTRS. The copyright holder is typically the photographer, however if the publicity agent can establish to OTRS that the photographer has transferred the rights to them then they can set the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:KenKrawchuk.jpg

I tagged the image as missing permission, a permission has been added at the source page https://www.facebook.com/KenK4Pa/photos/a.663301473692128.1073741825.663297590359183/1411922595496675/?type=1&theater (go to comments). Is that adequate or should the OTRS procedure be run? --Achim (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Achim55: unless I missed it (possible, since my browser doesn't play well with Facebook), there does not appear to be any explicit license. Mention is made of using it for informational purposes in any media, but no permission to modify. Nor does it appear to state that the campaign actually owns the copyright. I think OTRS with the unambiguous declaration would be best. Storkk (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS template

There's an OTRS ticket (id: 2013102510001373) for album covers released by YG Entertainment. I would like to upload more covers from this company but I don't know what template should I use during the upload since, as far as I understand, {{OP}} is used when waiting for confirmation from the OTRS team and this ticket is already in use. Thank you.--Vermeer 9 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You can use {{PermissionOTRS}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Er, we have an abuse filter to prevent non-OTRS agents from doing exactly that. OTRS agents may create individual templates for mass releases specifying extent and license of the release (Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission; pinging Teemeah).    FDMS  4    18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to ask someone else to do a template. I'm no longer an OTRS agent, due to lack of time I can spend answering inquiries, I resigned. Teemeah (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Use in Book

I am interested in using several photos for an upcoming book. All are from commons.wikipedia.org. They will be credited the page where they're used.

1) Terms of use say I can use these with credit. Is that cotrect?

2) If so, do I also have to include licensing information>

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkreiser7 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see the page Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for some general information. Basically, you must read and comply with the specific licensing terms for each photo you use. Different photos may have different copyright statuses and licenses. For licensed photos, the license for each photo is offered by its author. As a user, you are dealing with an offer made by the author, not by Wikimedia. Look what credit is required by the author in conformity with the license. Credit for authorship must be given to the author, not to Wikimedia. In general, the license must be mentioned, so that the readers of your book will know how they can use the photos. For photos tagged "public domain" by the effect of law (not released by their authors), your use would be ruled by the copyright laws of the countries in which your book will be distributed. (Keep in mind that a work may be in the public domain in one country but not in the public domain in another country.) If you wish, you can mention here one or two examples of photos you want to use and we can provide more specific answers for the examples in question. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Some examples

“, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode (Attribution) Lisa Gansky from New York, NY, USA (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marian_Hossa_-_Chicago_Blackhawks.jpg), (License: Lisa Gansky from New York, NY, USA (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marian_Hossa_-_Chicago_Blackhawks.jpg), „Marian Hossa - Chicago Blackhawks“, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54010061 (Credit/Attribution: Anna Enriquez from San Antonio, United States) - Dave Bolland, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54010061 (License: Anna Enriquez from San Antonio, United States (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dave Bolland (5442431814).jpg), „Dave Bolland (5442431814)“,

I ran each photo through the Attribution generator for licensing and got attribution info before downloading pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkreiser7 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The two examples have CC licenses (one CC BY-SA 2.0 and the other CC BY 2.0) and their original source is at Flickr. The attribution generator gives an idea of what the license requires. You can reformat it to make it clearer, as long as you mention the attribution to the author, the license and the url of the license. Assuming you are speaking of a printed book, one possible way to write the credits in a printed publication can be like this:

• Photo by Lisa Gansky. License: CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marian_Hossa_-_Chicago_Blackhawks.jpg
• Photo by Anna Enriquez. License: CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dave_Bolland_(5442431814).jpg

Of course, you must also make obvious which credit applies to which photo. For example, the credit for a photo could be written after your legend for that photo. But the CC licenses leave you latitude to place and format the credit in ways you deem suitable, as long as the required mentions are preserved and it's clear with what photo they go. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple textlogo

Could be fr:File:Logo Canoe.svg considered a simple text logo? Could I transfer it to Commons using that argument? Thank you. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 01:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In Canada, probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In the US, definitely yes. Kaldari (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

About the use of files under PD-US-1978-89

Hi everyone,

I found some pictures extracted from a PDF of Soviet Life magazine under PD-US-1978-89, for example this picture. Can I use this picture for a new image file modified (desaturated and cleaned by me) and under the same license? I mean extract or use exactly the same image file from Commons for the whole work, not another version of the image, neither part of another taken from a different source on the internet, and probably non free. Regards! --C records (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The image is public domain in the US, and derivatives that have their own copyright can be licensed how the creator wants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I don't really understand your question. But it sort of sounds like it implies that the photograph is licensed and/or that this particular copy is free by the fact of being present on Commons. That would be a misconception. The photograph is not licensed, as far as can be told from the available information. It may be either non-free or in the "public domain" in different countries, depending on the copyright laws of each country. The uploader to Commons tagged the photograph as if it was in the public domain in the United States on the grounds that a copy was reproduced in a magazine published in the U.S. in October, 1984. However, this was not the first publication. The photo had been published elsewhere before, for example in April, 1984 in Russia in the magazine Лёгкая атлетика, and possibly before that in other publications. If the photograph is not free in a country, copies of it are not free either in that country. The notion of first publication means the first publication of the work, in this case the photograph, not the publication of later copies of the work. By the way, maybe the photographer could be identified if the original publication can be found. Now, if you had a photo on Commons that was actually in the public domain in the U.S. and you modified it, the status of your modified image could depend on the level of original creativity added by your modifications. If you think you added something really creative, you can claim a copyright on your work and license it. But simple desaturation and cleaning may not be copyrightable. Sorry if all that was already obvious to you. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I wanted to restore some of these pictures and there was an ambiguity about the license, but now is clearly defined. By the way, based on a little investigation the picture corresponds to World Championships in Athletics, celebrated between 7 and 14 of august 1983. I found a similar picture on TASS (Russian News Agency) picture database, dated: August 10, 1983 and corresponding to those dates. So many thanks again! --C records (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you screenshot a website?

I have a student that took a screengrab of a website (File:PolitiFact's Fake News Almanac .png) to show the website's list of fake news sites. The website has a copyright notice up, so I'm concerned that this would be considered a possible copyright violation. If it is permissible, the copyright for this will likely need to be altered because they uploaded this as their own work (likely because it was a screen grab). I know that screenshots can sometimes fall into a gray area, so I wanted to ask. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

At least the text is copyrighted. So, the screenshot should be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You could also crop to the list of fake websites itself. --Hannolans (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I think this is fine now --Hannolans (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Original author posts

I entered an interview with the owner of a bicycle company. When I was trying to start a wiki that does not exist. The information was obtained and recorded by me. The same information is in the companies website. Which I put there under About us. My wiki was rejected because it was copyrighted material, true, but I own the copyright in both incidents. The website, which I created does have a disclaimer Content ©2017 company name All rights reserved, in essence, that copyright belongs to me. Obviously I want to have the same information in both locations to convey the information. Is there any way, this would be acceptable? Frogg1v (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Frogg1v: It appears you are talking about an article page on the enwiki that you started but it was deleted. The commons only deals with media files and while you have made some uploads here, copyright content in an article page must be dealt with over there. Perhaps a good start will be the history of your deleted page, such as asking the deleting admin for their advise. I suspect the organisation you are trying to write a page about is not notable enough to be supported by published third-party reliable sources and besides which because you are involved then you also have a conflict of interest which is a problem. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Born to Win.ogv

Hi, Could someone help to find out if there was a copyright notice or not for this film? Thanks a lot, Yann (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted There is indeed a notice in the film. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Argentinian stamps of 1967

An Argentine postage stamp of 1967 is public domain? What license template should be used? If possible, I want to upload this image. On it can be read "Casa de Moneda "IV - 1967" H. Viola dib.". The photo on the stamp is an old daguerreotype of Juana Manso (1819-1875). There are other stamps of the same series, such as Cecilia Grierson (1859-1934) or Alfonsina Storni (1892-1938). Complete series. The photos on the stamps are public domain in Argentina by age. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The drawing/engraving on the stamp is a work by the drawer/engraver. Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Argentina says "If the designer of the stamp is shown, the stamp will remain in copyright for seventy years after death." -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if the images are faithful reproductions of photographs in the public domain? These images were already public domain in 1967. Can the derivative work, in this case, generate new rights? I could find that "H. Viola" is Héctor Viola (b. 1934), who is alive. Here are other stamps of the same author, but these have not photographs but drawings. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1967 drawings/engravings may be more or less derived from public domain photographs, but they are not "faithful reproductions", they are distinct works with a personal touch of the drawer/engraver. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand! (it is always possible to learn something new). That is why the stamps say: "H. Viola dib." (H. Viola draw.). And as he still lives ... we have to wait a little over 70 years yet! Thank you for all! --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Construction of the Golden Gate Bridge

Hi, Is there any change that these images may be OK (no notice, or copyright not renewed)? I uploaded File:Workers constructing the Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, but it may not be OK. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a chance, but there isn't much information there. If the photos were published at the time, they may well be OK, but if they went unpublished the copyrights may well still exist. The Library of Congress has some images, and states: Images received through copyright deposit: The copyrights on images registered by Underwood & Underwood (including the hundreds of stereographs issued by the firm) have expired or were not renewed, so the images are in the public domain. The firm also apparently made a gift of "stock surplus" between 1922 and 1935; those had a non-commercial restriction. In presenting these photographs to the Library, the company stipulated that they not be used for "commercial purposes," presumably to avoid competition with its commercial interests, and stamped many prints with restriction notices. By mid century the firm was inactive. The Library is unaware of any company successor or heir. Searches have not turned up any existing copyrights for Underwood & Underwood images. So, it sounds like for anything which required registration or renewal, the copyrights would have expired. On the successor though, it's harder. w:Bettmann Archive says it acquired rights to material through World War I; those were later acquired by Corbis, which was sold, and Getty may have then licensed those. That may give some credence to the "Underwood/Getty" credits on the source, but the Golden Gate Bridge was much later than that period. There is underwoodarchives.com as well, which claims rights over the material you can purchase there. Not sure I see these images there. It is unclear if Getty acquired legitimate rights to unpublished photographs, or found some PD images, digitized them, and is claiming rights regardless. We may need to demonstrate that these images were published somewhere in the 1930s (or at least before 1964). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

19th century photos

I'm considering uploading a photograph of a football team taken ca. 1884-85. It was published in a book from 1921 reprinted from a local newspaper (the photo itself is likely to have been first published around the time it was taken in the 19th century). I would assume that the copyright would have belonged to the local newspaper (now defunct, last published ca. 1985) or the football club. I think this photo should be public domain now, but hesitate to upload this because another photo from 1921 was deleted saying that there is no indication that the author would have died before 1947. Presumably the same argument can be applied to this photo even though it is older. Is the photo safe to be uploaded? Hzh (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Which country? --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

UK. This is the photo concerned - [18]. Hzh (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If the photographer is unknown then it's safe to presume an 1880s photograph is public domain. You can apply {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Later publications do not remove the rights of the photographer. If previously unpublished there would be potential publication rights, you may find COM:CRT a handy bookmark. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it make any difference if the football club concerned claims copyright? Hzh (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If previously published, no. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I found the same image in the official website - here (go to year 1885). Oddly enough it says all photgraphs are copyrighted by Getty Images unless stated otherwise. Can't see it in the Getty Images site though. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Getty are famous for making idiotic copyright claims on public domain material, see Copyfraud. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I recently added File:Mary Jones walking two miles to read a Bible.jpg which is an anonymous illustration in a book published in 1919. I used {{PD-UK-unknown}}{{PD-1923}}. You should not use PD-UK-unknown on its own because you also need a US public domain tag. You should give a reference to the 1921 book and/or the earlier newspaper to establish a publication date more than 70 years ago. The book is presumably the one scanned here, with the team picture here. The PD-UK-unknown tag says you should "specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." I suggest you say that the photographer is not credited in the book, then do a Google image search to check whether anyone has made a credible attribution, and say that you have made this search. Also, it would also be good to add the names of the players from the caption in the book. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the suggestions. I'll upload it later and see what happens. Hzh (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Philippines copyright under American rule 1898–1946

Can anyone shed some light on whether before 4 July 1946, works in the Philippines are to be considered all public domain or whether we should be concerned about U.S. copyright law? The section at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#The_Philippines has no specific statement, but under a literal reading makes it appear that all photographs taken more than 50 years ago are public domain, however that reading is based on current copyright law in the Philippines without consideration that the Republic was created in 1946. My presumption is that any work published before July 1946 in the Philippines cannot have a copyright, but I have seen nothing that sets a clear precedent. If we can find a source, then that would be a useful improvement to COM:CRT. This would also clarify {{PD-Philippines}}, which gives the implication that non-photographic artistic works of any age may have copyright if the artist died less than 50 years ago, which I'm unconvinced is true if the work was created or on display (such as statues) before 1946. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright law existed in the Philippines before 1946. So you can't ignore works created before then, unless they have expired. Spanish law would have existed before 1898, and sometimes such laws were kept, though I think the U.S. replaced most all of those laws. Unsure if the U.S. copyright law applied directly or not, but the Philippines passed their own copyright law in 1924 (law no 3134), heavily based on U.S. law but not necessarily the same. I think it was 30 years from publication, with a renewal extending a further 30 years, from the commentary I can find. It was amended in 1946 (obviously some things had to change when they became independent). They joined the Berne Convention in 1951 but I'm not sure how much they modified their law to match. I think a new law (under Marcos) mostly replaced it in 1972, probably with longer terms, and it has been superseded again today. While the laws get replaced, the effects of older laws may sometimes still apply. To know for sure, you have to work backwards from current law, and see how the transitional sections treat rights from the previous laws. If the new law shortens a term, sometimes that means existing works also have their term shortened, or sometimes a law will grandfather the longer, existing terms (in which case the old law is still material to determining copyright status). If a term is lengthened, the new law may be completely retroactive and restore copyright, in which case the old law does not matter; sometimes the new law will extend existing works only if they are still under the copyright term of the old law, and sometimes the new law will only apply to works *created* after the date of enactment (i.e. the old law's terms continue to apply). In the latter two cases, the previous law's terms can still affect the copyright, so you'd need to know the details of each law along the way. Usually terms are lengthened, so if something is beyond the current law's terms anyways, it's generally OK. But knowledge of earlier laws can sometimes show that a work expired before and was never restored. But you can't pretend the older laws simply didn't exist and are automatically PD, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs)

@Clindberg: my expectation that the state legislation may have been "reset" when state governance changed from American rule to a new republic is based on the legislative history of other countries where the state ceased to exist and consequently the legal acts that the prior state published also ceased to have any effect. This is not the same, legally, as updating a previous copyright act. I would like to see an authoritative legal case or legal standard text for Philippines law that explains that the "old law" is still enforced in the courts of the Republic. If you have found any sources that appear to confirm the fact, it would be great if we could add some sources to CRT. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally, for the succession of laws, they would continue to exist unless explicitly repealed. It's not like there is instant anarchy and removal of all existing laws whenever there is a change in government -- usually, they just repeal the particular laws they do not like (even after revolutions). U.S. common law can still cite precedents from English law prior to 1776, if they are deemed to apply (see w:Commentaries on the Laws of England). For the Philippines, it looks like they repealed any law provisions which gave special rights to U.S. citizens or the U.S. government, but kept the rest (unless changed by further laws, of course). http://laws.chanrobles.com/republicacts/1_republicacts.php?id=76 The 1972 copyright decree repealed the law of 1924 by name, so that (other than provisions for U.S. citizens/corporations/government) applied until then. Some of the provisions are clearly incompatible with the Berne Convention, which was joined in 1951, but it's not clear which rights may have continued to apply. The 50pma Berne minimum did not exist until the 1970s, I don't think. For a bit more info:

• 1924 law: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3587019 Looks like the term was 30 years from registration, with renewal available for a further 30 years. Unclear if publication without registration would invalidate the copyright, or it was essentially without copyright protection until registered without technically being injected into the public domain. The 1946 amendment looks like it simply removed any rights of U.S. citizens and the U.S. government explicitly mentioned in the law (but reciprocal relations were established in 1948).
• 1972 presidential decree: http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1972/pd_49_1972.html This changed to a pretty standard 50pma type law, compliant to the Berne Convention. Applied art, cinematographic works, and photographs were protected for 30 years. Unsure if that means 30pma for works with a known author, with 30 years from publication just being for anonymous works, or if it is 30 years from publication for all works.
• 1998 law: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3432 Still 50pma. Anonymous still 50 years from publication, but will terminate at 50 years from creation if not published. Applied art become 25 years from creation (shorter term), cinematographic became 50 years from creation, and photographs became 50 years from publication (or creation if unpublished in 50 years).
• Both the 1972 and 1998 laws state: The provisions of this Act/Decree shall apply to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to the effectivity of this Act/Decree is subsisting: Provided, That the application of this Act/Decree shall not result in the dimunition of such protection. So, longer terms previously existing may still apply, but there was no retroactive copyright. It is unclear what that means for older, unpublished works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis and sources. It looks tricky, and maybe we should establish some precedent with a few DRs and real cases which examine the sources further, however the rule of thumb of just applying the current copyright terms looks like it should be fine. I think that where cases may have been marginal in previous decades, now we have hit the 50 year mark after the Republic was created, the uncertainty over whether old laws might have applied is probably unnecessarily hypothetical. I'm finding it hard to think of what cases might look like where using the current 50 and 30 year rules would give us the wrong outcome either way. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

COM:IDENT question wrt nationality of photographer/subject/upload location

There is a COM:IDENT query at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpg. The photograph was taken in the US where I believe photographing/publishing identifiable strangers without permission is legally and morally considered OK. Our continental European friends sometimes take a different view both legally and morally. In this case, the photographer is German and uploaded the image in Germany, and does not know the nationality of the people in the photo (concerned they could also be German). So could a German tourist sue a German photographer for uploading an image of them taken in the US -- which law applies? -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This question is not about copyright, so here may not be the best place to ask. I think places where you could find more expertise about it could be on Commons:Forum or de:Wikipedia:Auskunft. (FWIW, anyway, I don't think that the citizenship/nationalities of the photographer and of the pictured persons have anything to do with it. What matters is the places where an action is done and where this action has consequences. If someone makes something available to the public in Germany and, by doing so, violates the rights of someone there, I don't think German law would discriminate and say that the publisher can ignore penal or civil German laws in Germany just because he is not a German citizen, or that the people whose rights are affected in Germany can't use German law just because they are not German citizens.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to German law, a German resident can always be sued in Germany. The question whether German law applies is different and depends on if there is a collision of freedom of speech and personality rights in Germany. German courts tend to apply German law when there is a link to Germany, e.g. the picture is being shown in a German newspaper or on a German language Website. In the specific case I'm not sure whether this would be a violation of personality rights of the two persons if we'd show their faces. On the one hand, according to German law it is in principle illegal to show a picture of a person publicly as long as the person shown didn't give their consent. On the other hand we have an exception for "pictures in which the person appears only as an accessory beside a landscape or other place" but only as long as there are no conflicting "legitimate interests of the person". So it's really hard to say if this exemption applies in this certain case. I'd normally say it would be better to blur the faces to avoid any discussion. I guess the author isn't interested in being sued. tl;dr: Blur the faces. --Code (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair use images

We all know that "fair use images" are not permitted here. But what's meant by "fair use images"? Is it images whose uploaders claim fair use (basically identical to the en:wp process), or is it images that someone might claim thus, or something else? After all, the fairness or unfairness of a use depends on a lot of factors (it's not some sort of status attached to certain images), and anyway, if you're claiming an image upload as fair use, you're acknowledging that it's a nonfree image, which we necessarily reject. When we treat them the same way as any other nonfree image, I just don't understand why we'd refer specifically to fair use images (even dedicating a speedy-deletion criterion to them), aside from a simple information page explaining the situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"fair use" is federal judge nomenclature that is US case law.

non-free has a somewhat more recent coinage. "In fact, when this whole policy was adopted seven years ago, the term "non-free" was not used in the debate. It wasn't even introduced after the Foundation resolution. Know why it was introduced? I had a conversation at a meetup with someone I'd argued with frequently here who was a pretty strong advocate of the policy at first, but grew disillusioned when some of his comrades admitted to him, over one issue, that the goal was to effectively discourage the use of any fair-use media by making it impractical and difficult to justify doing so even where the file in question easily met the criteria (so yeah, my ability to AGF here is a little hampered). He told me that "non-free" was coined simply in response to people, usually new editors, who didn't understand the whole "free as in speech vs. free as in beer" thing. That's all." [19]

do you understand now? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fair use images" are images that people are uploading under fair use. This is pretty standard English; an extreme example was the "canoe wife", referring to a British woman whose husband allegedly died in a canoe accident, and made the tabloids when she and her husband turned up in Brazil. Which was too much to fit in a headline, so she just became "canoe wife" to the British tabloids. It's not a form of word formation that would thrill Lojban writers, but it works in practice for English speakers.

There's a difference here from non-free images; non-free images generally refers to images that are legally uploaded here but under an insufficiently free license. Fair use images are copyrighted images that nobody involved holds the rights to, that someone uploaded on the grounds that they could be used under fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"fair use" is a legal construct with a 4 factor test; "non-free" is an ideological construct that does not have a test, and as related, is deliberately obfuscated, to give discretion to delete items here.

"fair use" items have a rights holder, but the judges constructed an "academic" exception. author's guild, universal music, and MPAA hate fair use because it threatens their monopolistic behavior. there is a campaign in australia to adopt fair use rather than fair dealing. [20] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 10:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"non-free" certainly has definitions, e.g. w:Definition of Free Cultural Works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

a definition of "free works" is not a definition of "non-free". that is a coinage done in a pseudo-mathematical way. it is an ideology of exculsion based on negation. there is a lot of interpretation of where to draw lines based on "reasonableness." (such reasons as "minimize = 0", or illegal art will be difficult to enforce, or de minimus is not enforceable) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"non-free" is a work which does not comply with the definition of a "free" work, which is defined in terms of copyright. If something is not eligible for copyright, or the copyright has expired, then it is free because there are no copyrights that exist in the first place. "difficult to enforce" is not a criteria for keeping anything. "de minimis" is a standard seen in laws and courts around the world, where a usage of a work is so minimal that it would not be infringement under any circumstances. The "illegal" part is a belief that the criminal act inherent in creating a work would mean that the copyright would basically be extinguished, i.e. not exist, not the same as "difficult to enforce".

"fair use" is a use which is not infringement due to the circumstances of that particular use, but where other potential uses of the same work *would* be infringement. Also, it is defined in U.S. law, and is not a general worldwide standard (a couple countries have incorporated the U.S. definitions, but most are more restrictive although all have some situational uses allowed). To be "free", a work needs to be usable in *all* circumstances, not just some, without realistic fear of copyright infringement (provided some "acceptable" requirements are met, such as attributing the author). A "fair use" work by definition is a work which the uploader does not own, and therefore cannot license, and the copyright still exists and is not freely licensed by the copyright owner. That is not something we can accept. In general, the line is that things which are OK in *all* circumstances -- including commercial use -- we are normally OK with, but works which only avoid infringement in certain circumstances are not OK (even if those circumstances apply to Wikimedia's own use). "de minimis" usually only comes up in derivative works, and the line between "de minimis" and "fair use" in derivative works can indeed sometimes be difficult -- but the line is still typically "are there some uses of the resulting derivative work which would infringe the original". But uploading a straight-up copy of a copyrighted work is not OK, even if our use would be covered under fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

we see in "censorship" debates, it is: "Wikimedians's mission is to collect all knowledge and make it available to all people" (except the un-free knowledge) the "free" ideology also restricts downstream use with SA but not NC. apparently evangelism of freedom is acceptable but not non-profit status. that is an ideological choice not a legal choice. by the binary ideology, you also exclude "orphan works" where copyright is unknown. the community has chosen to delete these, but it could also adopt a standard of practice of doing the copyright research work. instead it decides to put the work on others. that is a choice of how the rules are practiced.

banksy has a copyright, but he does not enforce it. and graffiti has a consensus to stay. the community is making a risk assessment about copyright, but is capricious in how risk is assessed, not based on facts, but numbers.

so no, copyright is not clear-cut between free and non free: that is a construction useful for the exercise of power only. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "free" is an ideological choice. It most definitely makes it harder to produce an encyclopedia when you are restricted to such media. The "SA" type is the difference between "open source" software and "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation -- without SA, it can be used commercially (and derivatives not published), but with "free software" (the SA provision) companies can only use it if they also make their derivative works under the same license. The idea there was once you put the effort into making the software "free", if someone wants to use it, they should also make their improvements "free" as well -- if they don't want to do that, they can write a version from scratch themselves. The idea is that the body of "free" software always increases, and you won't have "new and improved" versions that people charge a lot for, based on the work of people who gave it away. Needless to say, most companies shy away from that. If we followed that philosophy, we wouldn't allow "CC-BY" but would require "CC-BY-SA", much like Wikipedia itself does. "open source" encompasses that concept, as well as licenses like BSD, which simply makes the code available to whoever. If a company wants to use it, and make an improved version and sell it, that is fine. Commons' "free" philosophy is more like "open source". NC restrictions, however, are often problematic. If a non-profit wants sell T-shirts of such a work as a fundraiser, that would be a commercial use (they are using it to make money). It does not matter if the organization is a non-profit or not; it would be a copyright violation. The scope of "NC" versus "non-NC" uses is not well defined, and can be very problematic for works which we want others to be able to use. You say "Banksy has a copyright" -- where has that been ruled? The theory -- and I would agree that it is controversial -- is that since you can't profit from a crime (a tenet of common law), therefore you would probably forfeit the economic right for something which is inherently a crime to create. If that theory turns out to be wrong, then yes we would have to delete such works -- we are not keeping them because he is not enforcing the copyright; we are keeping them because we think the copyright does not exist. "free" is an ideological choice to be sure, and the boundaries in odd situations can be difficult and arguable, but that is the choice that was made by Wikimedia long ago (and for some, the reason they contribute). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS 51 day backlog.

So if I email proof of permission to OTRS, they say they have a 51 day backlog. So I have to wait 51 days to use the images on Wikipedia? If not, what is the exact procedure for using them sooner? I feel like I need a law degree to read any of this stuff! Isenta (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you send a permission email to OTRS, following the instructions at OTRS, you will get an immediate reply with a ticket number. You can upload the image then, if you make sure to tag it with {{subst:OP}}. You can use the image while it is in the queue. Note however that "proof of permission" (statements like "you can use this image on Wikipedia") are not sufficient. Since our main goal is to collect media that anyone can use for any purpose, we need an actual license from the copyright holder. The license needs to allow for commercial derivative works. Please see COM:L. Storkk (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Isenta, the only time that OTRS needs to be emailed is concerning images that have been uploaded by people other than the owner. This is because, to be on our project they need to be released freely, and only the owner can legally do that, and there isn't any other private or confidential way to ensure that the uploader is also the owner except by email. However, if the images you are interested in using on Wikipedia appear anywhere else online, such as on a blog post by the photographer, or something similar, the only thing the photographer has to do is edit their image caption on their website to say "This image is CC-BY-SA-4.0" or similar, and that is essentially the same declaration. Finally, if the photographs happen to be your own work, feel free to jump in and upload them straight away, no email needed. This is how a large part of our collection has been contributed, by self-contributing photographers. seb26 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Wolves201 all appear to be copyright violations

Hi

Images uploaded by User:Wolves201 all appear to be copyright violations, originally taken by Jan Fleischmann.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: the user emailed me using an email address that proves he is Jan Fleischmann. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of World War 2 Planes

I would like to upload a photo of a Bristol Blenheim and a Short Stirling, however, I am not sure about copyright. Can you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Fineberg (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the photo in question? Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Short Stirling Bristol Blenheim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Fineberg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bristol Blenheim, available in higher resolution on all-hd-wallpapers at 1152 x 864 px. However the copyright is unclear and as this is a modern colour photograph, it may well be under copyright.

Short Stirling, available uncropped and in much higher resolution at this blog at 5104 x 4016 px, probably a scan from an original printed photograph. This may be public domain as it looks like it could have been taken during WW2 by someone in service, however I can find no specific evidence of age or copyright status.

If you wish to upload these specific photographs, you'll have to do some research on when they were taken and what claims of copyright exist. The best evidence would be to find the photograph published on an official military website or national archives. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It depends on who took the photograph, and when. The first one appears to be a publicity photograph -- larger versions here and here. If we assume that it is a UK government publicity photo (likely), then it would be {{PD-UKGov}} and OK to upload. If it was a publicity photograph put out by the manufacturer, it's a bit harder. There seems to be no human author mentioned (and copies of the original publication are floating around so it's likely the author was not mentioned), so it probably re-entered the UK public domain recently as {{PD-UK-unknown}}. The U.S. copyright is cloudier in that situation -- if published within the U.S. within 30 days, which would not be at all surprising for a publicity photo like that, it would be OK -- but if not, it would be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and its U.S. copyright would last for another 20ish years. Yes, copyright law can be awful.

The second one seems to be a more modern photo, so probably not, unless the photographer licenses it. There is a larger version here, which indicates it's a 2007 photo, but that may be misleading and it may have simply been copied from somewhere else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

uploads by User:Judith Dupont

Hello. Judith Dupont is a 91-year-old Frenchwoman about whom articles exist on the English (en) and French Wikipedia. She is related to various people about whom articles exist in various Wikipedia: Ladislas Dormandi (en), Michael Balint (en), Enid Balint (en), Alice Balint (fr)...

Now, we have user Judith Dupont (talk · contribs) who has uploaded as her "own work" six pictures related to the aforementioned people. But this user stated that one picture was by Ergy Landau (en) before withdrawing this statement ([21]), that one picture was by Michael Balint before withdrawing this statement ([22]), and that one picture was a reproduction of a painting by Judith Dupont's mother, Olga Székely-Kovács ([23]). I am concerned that:

1. the user name might be in violation of Commons:Username policy - in any case it would require identification
2. the user is uploading as their "own work" works by others
3. some or all of the uploaded media may violate copyright laws

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Amended Biwom (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judith Dupont. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Artworks by modern day painter being self uploaded as CC

Hi everyone.

This is concerning 3 photographs of artworks (portraits oil on canvas assumedly) that have been created in the last few years by a contemporary artist. The photographs show only the artwork itself, with no canvas edges/borders nor the portrait hanging in a gallery, etc. Although this is almost always the wrong assumption to make, I want to say: assuming they have been uploaded by the artist themselves*, with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 tag, is this symbolic of the artwork itself being licensed irrevocably under a CC license? I think we could normally say there are two copyrights involved, the first for the artwork and the second for the photograph itself, but in this case, the photograph is obviously not demonstrating sufficient originality to distinguish itself as a separate work to warrant copyright of its own, leaving only the artwork.

Is the action of uploading as CC strong enough to be equal to a declaration of CC for the artwork? Does this argument generally hold up?

* there is an open OTRS ticket about this but I don't want this to distract from the question.

seb26 (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How is it different from any other upload when, for instance, the author of a photo uploads it under a CC license? Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am suspicious, and hope that the folks at OTRS scrutinise this carefully. w:en:Samuel Rush Condon would have to license either the photographs or the paintings, but I am unsure whether this can be done separately. Can these photographs be licensed without applying the same license to the paintings? Would the license transfer to any other photographs of the same painting, and allow derivative works based on the painting?

These images are all low-resolution and without camera metadata. The metadata of File:Portrait painting of John Jarratt by Samuel Condon.jpg has "Author: Mim Stirling", who is an established photographer.[24]. This image could have come from here. These photographs are not covered by {{FoP-Australia}}. I am unclear whether the photographer's copyright is an issue for "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works", it would not be if the painting were public domain, see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

See also w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Samuel Rush Condon. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Verbcatcher thank you for researching into this and also taking the time to do warn the operator of that user account on their talk. My gut feeling is that the conditions of the CC license were not understood at the time of uploading the files. seb26 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

the photographer's copyright is not an issue since we are poking a finger in the eye with PD-art (have a consensus to proselytize bridgeman around the world) why are you doubting a CC license with an OTRS pending. why not just delete all files with an OTRS pending? (or put a license missing tag on it). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as the photograph is essentially an uncreative reproduction, and the artist grants permission, I see no issue here. How does this differ from any time someone free-licenses a poster? - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What drew my attention initially was that two of the works uploaded here have been finalists for a prestigious portraiture award in Australia, the Archibald Prize. It did not strike me that the artist would be interested in releasing those works under a license that might foregotheir ability to monetise the work (even though historically according to a couple of news sources entries are not always that desirable after the competition ends [25][26].) It honestly looked like yet another person using Commons as a hosting site for various images related to the draft article they are writing on Wikipedia without realising the implications of using our upload page which automatically defaults to CC-BY. However, naturally we should not need to apologise for people's misunderstandings of the legal consequences of their actions. I need to clarify that the OTRS ticket does not confirm provide/permission for the artworks (as I now realise my initial message implied, please excuse me for that), but rather asked for clarification about why File:Samuel Condon Portrait.jpg was deleted. That file is an upload from the same account that uploaded the 3 artwork images. seb26 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

smh = so much doubt Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I marked the 3 images as no permission and when the artist's reply comes in, I can assess if it is them & if they agree to the conditions in relation to the files as depicting artworks entirely and not just as photos of the art. If no reply comes in, then they get auto deleted. Thanks everyone for the input. seb26 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: seb26 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burmese Pony.jpg

I'd forgotten about this, happened to look at it. Clearly I'm missing something completely obvious, but I still just can't understand how we can keep these files. Our upload form reads "Please only upload files that either are in the public domain in the source country (author died more than 70 years ago) and in the U.S. …". These images are presumably still in copyright in the source country, the UK (the author of the book died in 1976), so they do not meet the first requirement. Jameslwoodward, or anyone else, can you help me to understand this? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The source country for this image is USA, not UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think my closing comment at the DR covers it pretty well. Although the book may have been published in several countries, the particular edition of interest here was published in the USA and its copyright was not renewed. Therefore it is PD in the country of origin (the USA) and also, obviously, in the USA, which is what Commons policy requires. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The "country of origin" is the country of first publication -- not necessarily the nationality of the author. As mentioned above, that would seem to be the U.S., which covers both sides of Commons policy. Secondly, the author of the book is not necessarily the artist who drew the illustrations, or the photographer who took the photographs. Unless there is an artist named, it would be an anonymous drawing, and (even if the country of origin was the UK) copyright would last for 70 years from publication, which would expire in 2019. (If it was a UK publication, there could also be U.S. URAA issues, but since it's not, that is moot.) If there was an earlier UK publication which contained the same illustrations, that could be a real issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

which is the recommended licensing for one's own work?

I've uploaded a photograph under Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. I would like to change the licensing to the recommended version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahalyar11 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What license was recommended to you? Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ahalyar11 -- if you're the image creator, you can add any valid license you want without asking anybody, but retracting a previously-granted license is not usually allowed. AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's reasonable to remove the old license if you're going from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY of the same version, or to CC0. The key is that there should be no case where the old license is preferable, or the change could create a false appearance of infringement. In particular, there are certain waivers in CC 4.0 licenses that don't exist in earlier versions. Guanaco (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To answer the original question, the license you originally chose is an excellent one for Commons, and there shouldn't be any problems with using it alone in most cases. There's a list of preferred licenses at Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses. Guanaco (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Releasing images by company photographers

First and foremost, I do paid work on Commons and Wikipedia (disclosed on my userpages). On Commons, this work typically involves helping clients release photos for use across Wikimedia projects. I understand the rigorous copyright restrictions, and why they're in place, but I'm unsure how to proceed in the case of photos taken by company photographers. Some of my clients have staff photographers, whose contracts state that images taken for the company belong to the company, but I realize that proving that to permissions volunteers is rather difficult. I don't mean to try to skirt these rules, but is there any way in which we could sufficiently demonstrate that a company is the owner of an image, outside of sharing the language of the contract? I'm sure there's no easy answer to this question, but I'm hopeful there's some interesting discussion to be had on the subject.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In any case where you want to upload a file for which you are not the copyright owner, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions, which should eventually included proof of ownership and/or proof of identity. All documents are kept confidential. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yann, I don't think you have addressed the question, which concerns the best way for a company to establish its ownership of images, not how to release images for which the uploader is not the owner. As I see it, possible methods are be to arrange for the images to be put on the company's website accompanied by an acceptable licence, or for the company to create a corporate account on a photo sharing website such as Flickr, and post the images there with an acceptable licence. You would then upload the images to Commons with the same licence, and give a link to a webpage that confirms that the licence. You might be required to demonstrate to OTRS that the Flickr account is controlled by the company. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In that scenario, why would you be unable to share the language of the contract? The document could have personal information blacked out if necessary. seb26 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonder if FacultiesIntact has gone on vacation – no reply for days. Information on both company websites and Flickr et. al. can disappear in the future. It is also, no wonder that he finds it tough getting images through WC permissions. They only have his word for the permission he believes may have been granted to him. If he wishes to do things properly and professionally, it is to point out the person in the company that appreciate the positive benefits to releasing images on a CC license, is to have them send in an OTRS. Second line from the bottom of the template requests...

[Sender's authority  (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)].
If the company employee has such authority, s/he should have no problem e-mail it off to us. Of course, FacultiesIntact can fill out for him -but let the employee, manager etc., email it in – if it is in he's remit to release images as CC on his companies behalf. It also covers FacultiesIntact back. For if someone else, in one of his clients companies decides that images has been upload without executive approval and complains to Flickr and WC, then everything he has ever upload may become under suspicion, who as a paid editor, is expected to proceed and go through the motions in a professional manner and not be seeking longer all-around-the-house short-cuts. P.g.champion (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

P.g.champion So sorry, I have been on vacation! Thanks so much for the thought out reply. Recently, I've taken to having clients send in releases to OTRS directly, for the reasons you've mentioned. Even so, my experience has been that when clients send in releases to OTRS, even when they have the authority to release a photo, they are challenged on that authority. I don't want to try to take any shortcuts around this, but rather establish a protocol. Is best practice to do as Seb26 suggested, and share a redacted contract?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A few redacted contracts would help us to see what hurdles you are having to jump over. Some examples of challenged OTRS may also help. It may be something as simple, as their declared authority is not robust enough from the OTRS team's point of view. The sender may be a employee of the organization but not necessarily have executive authority. This mind-set is very prevalent with employees who work in Sales & Marketing departments whom assume that they can authorize anything. Having said that. As a paid editor and paid media expert, this is really something that you should already have the know-how as a professional, rather than lean on WP/WC unpaid volunteers. We already have such a protocol that you ask for, which is simple. One only has to: Study all our policies and then follow them. P.g.champion (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)