Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/08

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

Threshold of originality for sounds

In a deletion request for sound files of word pronunciations obtained from Forvo.com, an NC source, a user has opined that "the pronunciation of a single word or a short phrase is ineligible for copyright because it doesn't pass any threshold of originality and creativity." However, Commons:Threshold of originality mostly concerns images and has no mention of the threshold of originality for audio recordings. Is the user's argument something to be taken into consideration when discussing such files? Nardog (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's much like a photo; even a photo of a simple thing would include enough extraneous detail that would be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Section 803.5(B) in chapter 800 (page 41) of the Copyright Compendium says:
To be registrable, a sound recording must contain a sufficient amount of creative, perceptible sound recording authorship fixed as a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds.
Elements that determine the sufficiency and creativity of a sound recording include the simultaneous or sequential number of sounds, the length of the recording, and the creativity perceptively expressed in creating, fixing, and manipulating the sounds.
Short sound recordings may lack a sufficient amount of authorship to be copyrightable (just as words and short textual phrases are not copyrightable). See 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a); see also Chapter 300, Section 313.4(C).
So... there may be some support for that. On the other hand, sometimes the creativity of a recording is in the recording process itself, not necessarily the content being recorded. Two people recording something side by side may have very similar sounding recordings, but they are independent copyrights. There is obviously *some* level there, and a single one-off recording may be below it, but part of the problem in adding to COM:TOO is that I'm not aware of concrete examples of a sound recording being ruled below the threshold (either by a court or the Copyright Office). So, it's difficult to give much guidance other than a threshold exists. The threshold could be extremely low, possibly lower than common sense would predict -- and a court could find creativity in the mechanics of the recording itself, depending on the facts.
The DR in question furthermore looked like it was for a large number of uploads. While an individual recording may be below a threshold, a number of them would create a selection and arrangement copyright pretty quickly -- the uploaded number is *way* beyond that threshold. And uploading just one item of that compilation may technically be just under the borderline, that could also be considered a fair use sampling of that collection, which we would probably frown upon (and if there were multiple uploads, which ones should be deleted, since they would all be equally below the threshold individually). So... I would not recommend directly uploading anything from a non-free, copyrighted collection. Additionally, any pre-1972 recordings get into a very unpredictable area of U.S. law, where there may not be any recognizable threshold, since state laws are not bound by the threshold as specified in federal law. If an uncopyrightable snippet was used in a completely different context or part of another work, *maybe* there would be an argument. But in general, you are much better off creating your own recordings to start with (or using ones which have been freely licensed), much the same way Wikipedia article text is much better if original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Do these pass the threshold of originality or are they welcome here?

These are Romanian and Moldovan TV station logos that I remade in SVG for rowiki. Is it safe to migrate these to Commons? — Andreyyshore (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, you can upload these on Commons with {{PD-textlogo}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Andreyyshore (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Kathryn Tappen photos

File:Kathryn Tappen Headshot.jpg, File:Kathryn Tappen interviewing Rob Gronkowski of the Patriots.jpg, File:Kathryn Tappen with Dan Hicks (right) & @Doug Flutie (left).jpg, File:Kathryn Tappen Interview at Notre Dame Stadium.jpg and File:Kathryn Tappen at the 2017 NHL Awards & Expansion Draft.jpg all appear to have been uploaded by someone claiming to be working on behalf of en:Kathryn Tappen (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.89.249.155&oldid=791521421) which is not a problem, except that I'm not sure that we can assume that the copyright holder is Tappen herself just because she is pictured in the photos or that the uploader is the copyright holder if they are just an intern or part of "Tappen's team". Should these be tagged with {{Npd}} to verify their licensing or can Commons accept them as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, They would be OK if we had the original images with consistent EXIF data. This is not the case, so DRed: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mrooney2017intern. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Yann for checking these files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

FOP or copyrighted work of art?

It says: "There is Commons-suitable freedom of panorama in Croatia." on Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Croatia. Does this apply for this file , seeing the design is a work of art as the lighting installation cannot permanently be seen, but only for a few hours every night? -- Jo Atmon (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

An artwork must be permanently installed, not necessary seen. So, I think, it is ok. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Canal-Super3 logo2009.png

Can this really be considered {{PD-textlogo}}? I can't find anything about Spain's TOO in COM:TOO, but this seems like it might be complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection if Spain's practice is similar to something like the UK's. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree with you. Even in USA it may be protected. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I also think it's complicated enough to be protected. — Andreyyshore (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Pino Presti

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Pino Presti where there is an discussion of whether a person included in a photograph can be the author of the photograph on the basis that he organised and directed its creation. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of object - airplane black box

Hello,

OTRS received a valid permission for the picture, but do we need a permission for the object itself for an airplane black boxes ?

Thank you in advance

--AntonierCH (d) 13:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@AntonierCH: It appears so, inventor David Warren (inventor) died in 2010, so we can't use it until after 2010+70=2080. That should apply to all photos in Category:Flight data recorders and its children without permission for the underlying work.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Almost certainly not, it's a utilitarian object. Storkk (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that the inventor of the technology would have copyright over an image of an implementation of that technology. If anyone has rights it would be the manufacturer of this model of flight recorder. However, I agree that this is probably a utilitarian object, and it is exempt from copyright. In a similar way, we do not need permission from Boeing for an image that shows one of their aircraft. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Verbcatcher, Storkk and Jeff. Indeed I was asking about the design and COM:UA is exactly the answer I needed. --AntonierCH (d) 09:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: AntonierCH (d) 09:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Hound-Product-Logo.png

I doubt if file is above TOO and hence protected by copyright. To my eyes, it's a simple writing along with a simple geometric shape. --Mhhossein talk 03:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Guanaco (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:FROM-DISTINGUISHED-NEGROES-ABROAD-BY-JACKSON-AND-PRYDE-SAKANOUYE-TAMURARO-OF-JAPAN-LEADING-TROOPS-INTO-BATTLE-600x450.jpg

This is clearly not the user's own work. It's impossible to be sure where this was copied from, but see [1], [2] and [3]. Note the claim of a "coverup" in the image description. Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed this one: File:Sakanouye No Tamuramaro .jpg. Doug Weller (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Tagged as "no source". Yann (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on the file name and this source I conclude that this is a scan of an illustration in this book:
  • Fleming, Beatrice Jackson; Pryde, Marion Jackson (1946). Distinguished Negroes abroad. Associated Publishers, Washington D.C. OCLC 404451
There are limited scans of this book at Google, but I can't find this image there. Stylistically I suspect this is more likely to be a twentieth century illustration than an ancient Japanese painting. What would the copyright position be if this image was created for a book published in the US in 1946? Verbcatcher (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This source confirms that the book was copyrighted on publication. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Checking both [4] and [5], I see no evidence this has been renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jezyl Galarpe uploads

Editor ‎uploaded a number of logos for TV stations/TV channels as "own work" when it's quite clear they are not. Some of them, however, may be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}, etc., but there's nothing on the Philippines in COM:TOO. The files which are unclear are File:ABS-CBN Sports and Action 2016 logo.png, File:Aksyon TV logo.svg.png and File:ETC (Philippine TV channel) logo 2016.svg.jpg. The first two logos are being treated as PD on English Wikipedia as en:File:ABS-CBN Sports and Action 2016 logo.png and en:File:Aksyon TV logo.svg, but only for the United States; so, I'm not sure if Commons can accept them. If not, then the Galarpe versions probably need to be deleted per COM:PCP. The last one has been uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:ETC (Philippine TV channel) logo 2016.jpg, but I'm pretty sure it's too simple for non-free content. If Commons can accept this last one as PD, then there's no need for a local version to be kept on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yale Art Gallery

Udimu had asked me to create a copyright template for Yale Art Gallery. A draft is at Draft:Template:PD-Yale-University-Art-Gallery. There may be a need for two distinct templates here: one for faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works (where the photo itself would not merit copyright, the underlying object is in the public domain, and hence any attribution to the Gallery is a courtesy) and one for other photographs, such as those depicting three-dimensional sculptures (where the photo itself would involve enough creativity to merit a copyright of its own, so attribution to the Gallery is mandatory). I figure that someone here should be more expert in this than I, and can take it from here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lacking further guidance here, I have made two templates, {{PD-Yale-University-Art-Gallery}} and {{Attribution-Yale-University-Art-Gallery}}. - Jmabel ! talk 08:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks. I just do not have any idea what to do (you need to study law, to get around here ;-). It was just so annoying that a pic got deleted. I uploaded it again! best -- Udimu (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:TheFaceMenThailand.jpg

The file is claimed as "own work", but the exif data looks like it's an image taken from Facebook (perhaps from https://th-th.facebook.com/thefaceth). It still might be acceptable as {{PD-logo}}, but I can't find anything at COM:TOO about Thailand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is just a short text in a standard font. I see nothing that can be copyrighted here. Ruslik (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Ruslik. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hockei/license-4.0

User:Hockei/license-4.0 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this user page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is a license up for deletion, I thought you might like to know.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 14:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible attack files

File:METERS--ConflictResolution.jpg, File:METERS--Diplomacy.jpg, File:METERS--UserFriendliness.jpg, File:METERS--Wikipedia.jpg and File:METERS--Accessibility.jpg were all uploaded by Bruce Kluger apparently in response to a dispute he is having with another editor/other editors over a Wikipedia article. These files only seem to have been uploaded to target and harass another editor and I can't see how they are within within COM:SCOPE; in fact, they might even fall afoul of item 3 of COM:SCOPE#Examples. Can these be tagged for speedy deletion per item 3 of COM:CSDG? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this falls under copyright, but I certainly consider those files to be harassment of me by User:Bruce Kluger. I suspect this will end up at ANI on English Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:METERS--ConflictResolution.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
These files seem to be intended as attacks, thus they qualify for COM:CSD#G3. Re File:METERS--Wikipedia.jpg, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has been used so often I wrote en:WP:WINARS about it. That the uploader considers it an object of ridicule offends me personally.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Meters and Túrelio: ✓ Done All gone, thanks to Herbythyme and Taivo.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for writing about these files.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 14:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

copyright

This section was archived on a request by: Moved to Commons:Help desk. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Paleontological Research Institution

Hello. This is the first time I am creating a custom license tag. I just wanted to make sure everything is fine before getting back to the customer. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I looks good, but to make it look better, I would remove the quotes from "Paleontological Research Institution" and link to the institution's website.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mugshots from North Carolina

I wonder about a mugshot from North Carolina. Do those sources verify the public domain status of mugshots from North Carolina? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For more details, see w:en:‎Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting#Image of Wade Michael Page, where it transpired. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it above TOO?

For my own information, do you think the building depicted in this file is not above COM:TOO? --Mhhossein talk 14:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to say as the present state of copyright law in Angola is not clear in this respect but should be close to Portugal. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

site screenshots of prototype created for WMF research

File:Integratedfiltersprototype.jpg and others are being tagged as copyvios. a designer at the WMF created these prototype sites, and as a WMF researcher i am tasked to provide screenshots of what was tested during my research for documentation. the designer allowed me to upload these images at my convenience instead of having to ask him to do it every time. what kind of permission or licensing info is required for prototype screenshots like this? if the designer had uploaded these images himself, it would 100% be his own work (but would presumably still have the same copyvio issues i'm facing currently), he just told me to do it for him. also, this will be an ongoing type of image i will be uploading, so would like to know how to avoid getting the copyvios in the future on such images. thanks for any insight Dchen (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dchen (WMF): I see very little creative content expressed in these screenshots that isn't part of the MediaWiki interface already. These three templates should be sufficient in my opinion:
Guanaco (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Syria PD template need revision

I was trying to review some Syrian stamps and reviewed the linked pages. Based on w:Copyright Law of Syria and this Syrian Law Journal webpage, the template {{PD-Syria}} is out of date and need revision because several copyright terms have changed based on that article and a machine translation of this webpage http://www.rtv.gov.sy/index.php?d=100349&id=130539. That template is based on the now repealed 2001 law with a new law in effect from 2013. There was a post on this back in 2016 on the main copyright by country talk page but no one has updated the template yet. Can some one knowledgeable please do so? Also what are the implications for images that were free but whose copyright has been extended? Ww2censor (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked WIPO if they could update their Syria IP documents and within 24 hours they had uploaded this Arabic version in pdf. Ww2censor (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by 제승원

Many of the images uploaded by 제승원 have watermarks which may indicate a different author who has not given permission. Every image they uploaded is "own work" (especially for the montage of Busan, this seems a bit unlikely) and uncategorized. Could someone help verify if there are any copyright issues with these images? Jc86035 (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Free screenshots uploaded by User:יוסף אור

@יוסף אור:

A lot of uploads by this user have not sourced or attributed the original works in question, and don't seem to be own work entirely as claimed. These derivative screenshots seem to be free under LGPL or GPL licenses, but the incomplete source information makes it difficult to:

  1. verify the copyright of the original work; and
  2. comply with any (L)GPL license requirements (such as providing a link to the source, which has not been done).

@KAMiKAZOW: has previously changed some CC BY-SA 4.0 license tags on these uploads to the mostly appropriate {{LGPL}} (with a possibly minor mistake that the wiki template is LGPLv2.1+, but at least in one case the original work is LGPLv2+). I don't believe the CC BY-SA copyright claimed by the photographer (uploader) is significant in some of these works after checking few files, but may create an incompatible license issue if any GPL'd software is shown.

I'd like to propose and ask VP/C's help to:

  1. Consider removing nominating for deletion duplicate-looking files per COM:REDUNDANT (if it's easier, as a first step).
  2. Primarily (and anyone familiar with free software) source the origin, author and permission information to these files and add it to file descriptions.
  3. Secondarily tag images with {{Wrong license}} to categorize them into Category:Items with disputed copyright information and pre-emptively alert possible re-users.
  4. If significant portions of GPL'd software are depicted, the screenshot is above threshold of originality and the file was tagged with CC BY-SA licenses by the uploader, nominate for deletion under incompatible free licenses (unless the author(s) (the uploader) agree to GPL-compatible licenses).
  5. Change {{Own}} to {{Self-photographed}}?
  6. Lastly if sourcing is not possible, nominate the files for for deletion to comply with LGPLv2.1 section 4's offering of source code (and possibly others alike, in example theoretically GPLv2 section 3(a) / 3(c)).

Commons:DR has seen and previously deleted files failing to attribute and source files correctly, but it could be the last and most unfortunate option to do on these files. Some of these uploads are currently in use on Wikimedia projects, such as English Wikipedia. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC); edited 15:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Few prominent files in use and examples from them:

File:Firefox-29.0-Hebrew-GNOME.png
Unidentified Hebrew Wikipedia images, logos.
File:Chromium 28.0.1500.52 Hebrew.png
Unidentified Hebrew Wikipedia images, logos.
File:Gtk3-widget-factory-3.16.0.png
LGPLv2, tagged self BY-SA 4.0.
File:Gedit-3.16.0-Hebrew.png
GPLv2+ file header and source code of Epiphany prominently shown, tagged self BY-SA 4.0 (copyvio).
File:GNOME-Shell-3.10.png
GNOME website under CC-BY and numerous other icons not attributed or sourced.

And ~96 more files from the uploader with issues similar to these, clear negligence. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest changing the license tags to the correct ones and assume an honest mistake. If the uploader disagrees (they get notified), they can then voice their opinion and the steps to remove that content make sense. Keep in mind that the most "viral" license takes precedence, e.g. if artwork uses GPL but the application is LGPL, the whole work falls under GPL. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Request: I have a concern it may be too much burden (at least for me, personally) attempt to identify each of the screenshots, especially with foreign languages and the amount of works involved. The burden of proof is generally on the uploader, per Commons:Project scope/Evidence. I'll attempt to identify the images in use to keep them, and start tagging unused ones if there's no objection. The author may later go through COM:UNDEL process to restore the images with required proof. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 14:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm also actually a bit afraid of changing some of the CC BY-SA license templates to the correct ones, not knowing if threshold of originality (creativity) applies to the screenshots and if removing the CC BY-SA template would be an infringement on its own (regardless that the author's rights to distribution under GPL or whatever would be revoked). I'm not sure what to do, as deleting them could also be disruptive. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 14:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have tagged most (though not all) of the user's uploads with {{Wrong license}}. As previously mentioned, there is the issue of reusers incorrectly assessing the licensing of the screenshots. From what it seems, the licensing of screenshots is complicated because a single screenshot may incorporate multiple works. (In particular, it appears that some of the screenshots show a Web page displayed in a Web browser, and there are some screenshots that show source code or other text.) From what I understand, redistributing a work licensed under the GPL or LGPL requires providing a copy of the corresponding source code and/or an offer by which the corresponding source code can be obtained. (In the case of GPLv3 and LGPLv3, a link for downloading the source code may suffice.) In addition, as implied by the {{Incompatible license}} template, there is the question as to whether works licensed under different free software and free content licenses that have "copyleft" provisions can be included in the same screenshot; I am not sure as to whether there is a simple answer to that issue. --Gazebo (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

PD-TextLogo?

Hi. With regards to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Logo_Emergencias_Sanitarias_redimensionar.gif I'd like to know if you feel http://www.saludcastillayleon.es/ciudadanos/es/urgencias-emergencias/emergencias-sanitarias-castilla-leon/datos/imagen-corporativa could be tagged as PD-textlogo. What do you think? Regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This is always a matter of opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image of the Inauguration of Mayor Phil White.

This looks like another case of a family being in the possession of a physical photograph and assuming that therefore they own the copyright and one descendant assuming all privileges . Subject is not looking at the camera in a way that a farther would if a member of the family had asked him to pose. Do we give the up-loader the benefit of the doubt on this image as it appears to be professionally shot and a copyvio? P.g.champion (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can give the benefit of the doubt. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

File:L Vjollca.jpg

The file File:L Vjollca.jpg has been uploaded by AcromaxMedia under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licence, but I found this image at this page. The file at Commons appears to be a cropped version of this image, I can't see any copyright notice on the page, but I can't see any note about a CC licence there either. Could someone say if this is a copyright violation or not? Thanks. Seagull123 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Stormdog123 at WP Help Desk

Stormdog123 just asked a question at Wikipedia's Help Desk about a file they tried to upload from Project Gutenberg, could someone please help them out? The discussion is here. I believe that a {{PD-Gutenberg}} tag may apply. Seagull123 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

link should be en:Wikipedia:Help_desk#Trouble_uploading_a_picture. I think {{PD-1923}} fits better for a US work published pre-1923. PD-Gutenberg is more of a boilerplate tag for the book itself. Storkk (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Isabella Field Judson appears to have died in 1930, so I fleshed it out slightly more in an answer to en:Wikipedia:Help_desk#Trouble_uploading_a_picture. Storkk (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I didn't really know how to answer them any more fully. Seagull123 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Logos of "Перекрёсток"

Does Russia have a legislative copyright status of public domain?

File:Логотип Перекрёсток (1995-2010).svg
Initially no license, now {{Attribution}}. No evidence of permission.
How does COM:TOO apply?
File:Perekryostoq.JPG
Does this qualify as {{FoP-Russia}} (buildings) or {{NoFoP-Russia}} (artwork)?

2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 04:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Both images qualify as {{Pd-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 14:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Mass upload of (likely) copyrighted images - Russian-language

I have just nominated 4 of the 30 uploads of А1998 as likely copyvios. Many more of the remaining uploads seem to be taken from a Russian-language weapon Wikia and other copyrighted military-related sites. The Wikia has a CC license, but their image information is ridiculously thin (see [6] as example). The nominated images were easily found via Google image search, but in a foreign language it's still time-consuming. Could a Russian-language speaker please have a look, or would it be appropriate to mass nominate them per COM:PCP without researching every single image on its own? Only 2-3 of them have EXIF and may really be "own work", the vast majority seems to be from the Internet. Any advice or help with evaluating these images would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done All files deleted by Sealle. I added a final warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikia is not exactly known for its attentiveness to copyright rules - see http://vstf.wikia.com/wiki/File:Janitor.jpg?diff=5981&oldid=5977 for example.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Files deleted, user warned. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Emily Barker.jpg

Is OTRS permission needed for this? No source url is provided to verify that it has been released under a free license. Plus, the file can be seen used online here -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged it as "missing permission". De728631 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look De728631. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Drafts

Hello,

If I am drafting Wikipedia articles and continuously going back each day to edit/work on them (WITHOUT submitting them for article publishing/approval), why are they being deleted or marked as copyright issues? I am a new Wikipedia editor and I have been working on getting my drafts perfected and NOT copyrighted before submitting them, but every single draft has been deleted and my work is erased. I am looking to understand how it's possible for drafts to be flagged and deleted, is someone able to explain? If my drafts are constantly being deleted, how would one be successful in creating a legitimate and approved Wikipedia page? Thanks all Commtemp (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons and not the English Wikipedia. Usually we here cannot tell you any details on why your drafts keep getting deleted. From your description though it looks like you were using large parts of text that had already been published before by other people. You cannot simply copy and paste text from other sources but you have to write an article using your own words. This has already been explained to you by Diannaa at your Wikipedia user talk page, so I suggest you contact her at en:User talk:Diannaa. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Alliance-Air-New-Livery-ATR-72.jpg

Hello,
I am unsure about file's deletion and copyright, but the file:Alliance-Air-New-Livery-ATR-72.jpg uploaded by Nikhilns seems to be a screenshot. So, if Commons:Screenshots is relevant, there is a problem of copyright here, no?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged this with {{subst:dw-nsd}}. Guanaco (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons Versions

Some users upload a file under the free license of CC BY SA 4.0, but when they send a permission through OTRS, they mention an earlier version of the license, i.e., CC BY SA 3.0. Some users do the opposite. Is that important? 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Yes, those are different licenses, and an ambiguity in the release can (in extreme cases) render it invalid. Please ask for clarification (note that CC BY-SA 3.0 eMails are mostly based on w:WP:DCAE, which explicitly states that it generally should not be used for media releases).    FDMS  4    23:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I tend to change the licnese curently present on Commons to the one(s) specifically mentioned in the email. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I see two potential issues with that: a) Where there are discrepancies the license stated on the filedesc page is usually the newer one, which in the case of the 4.0 suite grants slightly more freedoms to reusers than older ones. b) We decided to reject releases before when there were indications that the licensor didn't really know what they were doing (c.f. Mynewsdesk.com); presumably unintentional releases under two different licenses can probably be interpreted as such an implication as well.    FDMS  4    04:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@4nn1l2, FDMS4, and Josve05a: I fixed en:Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to use CC-BY-SA-4.0.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Since people use that text for text releases as well, I've reverted you, since text can't be released under cc-by-sa 4.0 and be kept on Wikipedia (needs to be 3.0). It does say "For text, see below.", so it will cause users to try and release text under 4.0. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: What if they were to multilicense their text 3.0 and 4.0? We could accept that misuse of that page's text for images.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Most of Creative Commons licenses are perpetual (irrevocable) under the license terms. The copyright holder may always choose to distribute a file under any license (in example, a newer version of a Creative Commons license), but if it's been previously available under a different version of a Creative Commons license and uploaded to Commons, one could argue there's no legal obligation to honor the copyright holder's choice of upgrading to a newer license. In case of conflict, one could also argue it's dual-licensed and the licensee is granted a choice to select between the two irrevocable licenses. Upgrade paths for Creative Commons licenses are tricky, dependent on the version and who holds copyright: the publisher or contributors, and whether the work is new, existing or an adaptation of an already existing work.[1] 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 03:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Not only can we not assume that a released work is dual-licensed because there might have been a misunderstanding (see above), without further clarification from the copyright holder we cannot even be sure whether the license stated on Commons was added by the copyright holder themselves or the work has been "released" invalidly under that license by an unauthorised third party.    FDMS  4    04:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines
  2. ↑ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/

Newbee question;

As first try I would like to create a content for a Company. Their logo is certainly copyrighted and usage is unlikely under CCC. How can I use it on Wikipedia, what is required ?

By the way, I see a lot of company with their logo displayed on Wikipedia so I guess it is doable.

Thanks for helping ! Bernard Sfez (talk)

Hello Bernard Sfez, additional info is also available at en:Wikipedia:Logos (specifically for en-Wiki), and an overview of all language-specific Wikipedia projects and their handling of non-free material is available at [7] (some allow it, some do not). Different projects may have different rules, so you'll need to look up each project and its handling separately. Copyrighted logos can not be uploaded to Commons itself (unless the copyright owner would be willing to grant a completely free license for all usages, which is rather unlikely). GermanJoe (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your direction, I will check all that. Bernard Sfez (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 18:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Images on wikipedia

If I edit an image on a wikipedia page (a small but meaningful change in an optical illusion) do I have to do anything special when uploading it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmola (talk • contribs)

You should add a {{Derived from}} template to it in addition to a licence tag. Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
If the original image is potentially useful then you should not overwrite it, but should upload your modified image to a new page. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the licensing/copyright status of this seal

The image File:Seal of Tarrant County, Texas.png claims the seal is covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. This is the first I've seen this copyright tag, but from what I've read about it, this covers actual legal text and not necessarily local government seals/images. Am I correct in this assertion or is the seal in fact covered by this PD claim? Thanks for any insight. --Offnfopt(talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. PD-EdictGov covers the law itself. If a particular seal representation is actually in the law, it may be arguable. For an image drawn by state government artists separately, no, I don't think PD-EdictGov would apply. Where this may get a little more interesting is that the central section (which is pretty much all of the copyrightable part) is the Texas state arms, the artwork of which was standardized in the early 1990s. Title 11 Chapter 3101.002 of Texas law gives a general definition of the state arms, and says "The secretary of state by rule shall adopt the standard design for the state arms". Then the Texas Administrative Code Title 1, part 4, Chapter 72.2 gives an explicit graphic as part of that rule, which you could make the argument is PD-EdictGov. There are other laws which protect use of the seal, but those are non-copyright restrictions. I don't think we have uploaded that under the PD-EdictGov rationale, but it's not out of the question. However, the artwork on that particular county seal looks like it was one of the pre-1992 variants, so that may be a bit fuzzier. That particular artwork is around, such as here, so I think it did come from the state -- but less sure it was part of a law or code (the state notes that there were over 20 designs being used throughout the government prior to the 1992 standardization, so this may have been one of those). But, from a copyright perspective, that graphic would really follow the copyright of that older state graphic, whatever that is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg thanks for the detailed write up, sorry for the delay, I got called out of town unexpectedly and only just got back now. I found a image of the Texas seal you uploaded here File:Texas-StateSeal-1909Book.jpg so since only minor details have changed I think we should be able to use the same copyright notice since adding a few basic shapes, changing text and simple colorizing wouldn't allow for new copyright. Thanks again. -Offnfopt(talk) 17:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The differences may still be of the copyrightable type, but of course, the odds of PD-US-no_notice for items like this before 1989 get much higher. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

UK copyright

I moved File:Henry Fielding Dickens in the 1890s.jpeg to Commons from enwiki and am unsure whether it is still under copyright in the UK. How is the length of copyright calculated? The photograph was probably sold in the 1890s. Does this count as publication, and if the company published it without an author, is the length of copyright 70 years from printing by the company? Jc86035 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's life+70. If it counts as anonymous, it's a flat 70 years. {{PD-old-assumed}} would generally work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the UK Copyright Act of 1911 had a term of 50 years rather than 70; i.e. in this case copyright expired in the 1940s. At the time this photograph was taken, the Copyright Act of 1842 applied, meaning that the publisher would have had a maximum of 28 years of copyright protection until that act was replaced in 1911. Either way, the photograph is public domain now. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It would have been extended in 1911 to 50 years from creation, yes. But in 1996, UK copyrights were retroactively extended to 70pma, so it's possible the copyright was revived, if the author is known. Many UK photographs were public domain, but the question is if it is public domain now. For anonymous works (which it appears this is), it would be 70 years from publication, so that copyright was not revived since that term had also expired by 1996, let alone now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Island Games logo.png

Is the licensing for this file OK? I looked at the source url and I cannot find any mention of a copyright license. The organizers might have allowed journalists covering the games to use their logos, etc. as part of their coverage, but that would normally fall under en:fair use or en:fair dealing. Free for the press to use might not be exactly the same as free for anyone anywhere to use for any purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg

This file is licensed under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. but there's no source link and no other information provide which indicates that it is actually licensed as such. There is a different image of the same person under the same file name uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg. If the licensing of the Commons' file is OK, the non-free version would no longer be needed per en:WP:NFCC#1. A Google image search shows the Commons' file being used online in articles such as this prior to it being uploaded to Commons, so I'm not sure if we can keep this per COM:PCP unless the licensing of the original source can be verified. Is there a way to find out whether this has been licensed by the author as cc-by-sa-4.0? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It at least requires an OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Ruslik. It has been tagged with npd by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request

I have a doubt about copyright. Pages like this from Costa Rica's Parliament's Example say they have "Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional" licence as you can see, my doubt is, does that includes the photo? and is such then that means that the photos of such articles can be uploaded in Commons? Thank you. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The same portrait was actually at Commons from 2007 to 2011 as File:Bachiller Rafael Francisco Osejo.gif with a PD-self claim. It was eventually deleted as missing permission and authorship, so we don't know the true author. As to the Creative Commons licence for the website, it is a disclaimer that appears on every page of their site. However, they cannot grant a licence for works where they are not the copyright holder. I. e. artwork by third parties or out-of-copyright works in general can't be licensed by Costa Rica's Parliament. To sum it up, this image should not be re-uploaded to Commons unless we know exactly when and by whom it was created. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Well the person died in 1823, doesn't that makes the image already in public domain? But other images are more recent so the answer is that the licence does not apply to the pictures then. Is that correct? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on Copyright Status

Dear sir/madam, I have 2 images scanned from an 1899 Russian magazine (dated to Russian Empire) and I have intention to upload it into Wikimedia. However I am not sure on the copyright status of the images, and thus I haven't uploaded it. The original photographer of the images is unknown, but the magazine article is authored by A. Kunakhovich (which its date of death is also unknown). The image would be useful in the Wikipedia article "Vyatka Horse" and has a Wikimedia category dedicated to this entry (but my images are different from those already uploaded). The images are published in the magazine "Veterinarnyy Feldsher" (Volume 3, No. 12, 25 December 1899). My instinct tell me these images should be in public domain, but I am a newbie and I still need more guidance on determining the copyright status. Please help. Thanks.--Nick lzk1231 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

All pre 1917 publications in Russia are public domain. See {{PD-RusEmpire}} --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Licensing question

I am looking for some opinions as to whether some files uploaded locally to English Wikipedia would acceptable for Commons. The relevant files are being discussed at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 21#File:Imagechess.jpg. Basically,there are two files which seem to be identical in everyway except their licensing: en:File:Imagechess.jpg (licensed as en:Template:PD-textlogo)] and en:File:Chess.com logo.jpg (licensed as en:Template:Non-free logo). The latter was actually deleted from Commons per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chess.com because it was licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, so it was re-uploaded as non-free content locally to Wikipedia. There's no need for two of the same file on Wikipedia, especially ones with conflicting copyright licenses, so if Commons is OK to accept them as {{PD-textlogo}} then the non-free can be deleted from Wikipedia and the PD one moved to Commons. FWIW, I have also asked Natuur12, the deleting admin, about this on their user talk and am not questioning the close of the Commons DR. I am just trying to sort out the licensing to end this dispute on English Wikipedia, and feedback as to whether Commons might possibly accept this as PD would help accomplish that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No chance is that PD-textlogo. If you just have the lettering and maybe the chessboard part (i.e. remove the chess piece), it may be OK. But the chess piece is easily copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg. Perhaps you wouldn't mind adding such a comment to the Wikipedia FFD discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sound recording from 1974 (Dick Gregory performance)

I have a good audio recording of a 1974 performance by the recently deceased Dick Gregory (assuming that the tape hasn't deteriorated). Since this was done before the 1978 change in copyright law and is without a copyright notice, is it OK to upload? Bubba73 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're probably going to need some additional information to answer your question. Who made the recording? Did they make it with the knowledge and permission of Dick Gregory? Where was the recoding made? Has the recording ever been published, and if so, when and in what country? —RP88 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It was made by the college radio station (WVVS) where he was speaking. They took it directly off the mike feed, so not out in the audience. I think they broadcast it live, but I'm not sure since I was at the event. Later they rebroadcast it on the radio and I recorded it with my reel-to-reel recorder. They must have had his permission. Bubba73 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, if I understand you correctly, the situation is that Dick Gregory had a live performance in 1974 that was recorded by WVVS with his permission. The original sound recording is possessed by WVVS. Sometime later WVVS rebroadcast this sound recording, at which time you made your recording. Your recording was not made by or with the authority of the copyright owner of the original sound recording. Neither WVVS or Dick Gregory has distributed copies of the original recording to the public, nor offered to distribute copies for further distribution to the public. If that is correct, then the original sound recording is unpublished as the radio broadcasts constituted public performances, not publication. An unpublished sound recording created in the US in 1974 is not required to have a copyright notice and has a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. The earliest the copyright will expire is January 1, 2088 (perhaps later if there is a still living audio engineer who contributed creatively to the recording's sound production), at which time you could upload it to Commons using the {{PD-US-unpublished}} license template. —RP88 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, they did not distribute copies of the recording, if (as you say) a public performance and a radio broadcast don't count s publication. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Resolved

Just wondering - what if the radio station put a copy of the tape in the college library - does that count as publication? Bubba73 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If WVVS had the right to make copies, did indeed make a copy of the Dick Gregory sound recording, and then distributed this copy to a public library without specifying a restriction on further copying, then yes, I think this would probably constitute publication. If this sound recording was published by or with the authority of the copyright owner of the original sound recording prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, it could be uploaded to Commons with {{PD-US-no notice}}. To demonstrate the lack of notice, you'd probably want to also upload photos of both sides of the tape recording along with its accompanied packaging. —RP88 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There is probably no easy way to tell after all these years, without being there. It is too bad that people can't hear this again. Bubba73 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Book copyright

Is it possible to upload such a this images in commons? This picture is from a book, but as it is a simple circuit schematic, I don't know whether is subjects to copyright or not. Would you please guide me about the copyright of this file. What about the two others? (They are from the same book.)--Freshman404Talk 16:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Waveform
    Waveform
  • curve
    curve
  • circuit
    circuit
As a whole each of them is subject to copyright, of course. Their arrangement is original. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Because these images are widely used in various books and articles, I asked this question. this arrangement is not unique and every "buck converter" has the same shape. So still they subject to copyright? --Freshman404Talk 19:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I doubt there is a copyright, at least on the first 2. Simple mathematical diagrams, no originality. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The positions of labels and arrows as well as specific choices of font styles and sizes are original and may differ for different re-creations of the same diagram. Ruslik (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Bill Gasarch.jpg

Is it OK to assume a bit of good faith with repsect to this file's licensing or does Commons need OTRS permission? The author of the photo is claimed to be the subject of the photo and this photo is sourced to what looks like the website of the Department of Computer Science for the en:University of Maryland. The EXIF data looks pretty complete and seems to indicate that the photo was taken back in 2009; the same photo can be seen being used in 2010 here (scroll down to the "Maryland professor leads BU seminar" section), so it's probably at least that old. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Likely needs permission. I will reach out to him tomorrow. Storkk (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
One can assume good faith but-nothing I can see leads me to believe that this use is ligament here. It was not uploaded by him and unless he used a self-timer with the camera on a tripod he could have not took it. So, I think it needs deletion without a OTRS to back it up. Bill (Gasarch) may be able to supply an image with a OTRS (if he can be bothered). email gasarch at cs dot umd dot edu. P.g.champion (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Tagged no permission. Guanaco (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've sent him an email. Hopefully we can get this sorted out. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Collier, Jr.jpg

Hi, Is there any chance this to be in the public domain because of {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Only if it was published before 1989. Ruslik (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Xanadu House photos uploaded by Dgtldesigner

During the 1980s, in the US, three experimental Xanadu Houses were built. Recently, Dgtldesigner uploaded a number of photos showing (for the most part) Xanadu House interior views. (My initial guess was that all of these photos were taken at the Xanadu House that was located in Kissimmee, Florida, but that may not be accurate.)

From doing "search by image" Google Images searches, it appears that these images only appear on Commons, in the Xanadu Houses English Wikipedia article, and in this HowlingPixel article. It also appears that the HowlingPixel article has the same text and images as a version of the corresponding en-wiki Xanadu Houses article. The last of the images listed, File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg, also appears in this Wisconsin Dells page, this Dells.com blog entry from September 2014, and in a discussion thread on dawgshed.com. One of the Xanadu Houses was built in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. From this, the Xanadu House photos that were uploaded by Dgtldesigner are likely to be the uploader's own work, and may have been taken by them while the Xanadu Houses were still popular attractions, though I am not sure about File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg. (As a side note, the last of the Xanadu Houses was demolished in 2005, and the metadata for the photos indicates a date of October 12, 2010, but it may be that the photos were originally taken on film and were subsequently scanned into digital form in 2010.)

Assuming that there are freely-licensed photos of the Xanadu Houses, there is the second issue: Would the Xanadu Houses be uncopyrighted architectural works or copyrighted artistic works or models? (My understanding is that the Xanadu Houses were experimental in nature and were never actually occupied, and that the Xanadu House located in Kissimmee did public tours.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment If we can go in for a visit, they should be OK. It seems a similar case to a museum. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: To clarify: Are you saying that the Xanadu Houses would be uncopyrighted or subject to FOP as architectural works (the information at Commons:FOP for the US indicates that architectural works that were built in the US and for which the construction was completed before December 1, 1990 are not copyrighted and are basically subject to full FOP, both inside and outside) or that they are uncopyrighted for a different reason? (Among other sources, this 1987 Orlando Sentinel article talks about tours (including ticket prices) of the Xanadu House that was located in Kissimmee. Though not mentioned in the article, there were two other Xanadu Houses in different US states.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Even if they were not inhabited, they could be, so they should be regarded as architectural works. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Knowing that the Xanadu Houses can be treated as uncopyrighted architectural works is useful. From what it appears, however, there may be a licensing issue with at least one of Dgtldesigner's photos. As previously mentioned, when a Google Images "search by image" search was done, the image File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg showed up on a few additional pages, besides Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia. In particular, a version of the image appears in this blog entry that has a date of September 4, 2014 and in an archived copy of the blog entry from May 2015, even though the image was uploaded to Commons on July 5, 2017. From what one understands, this means that the uploader should provide confirmation that the image is licensed under a free content license. (The file info page for File:Xanadu_-_caves_of_ice.jpg indicates "Own work" as the image source.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Given that a version of File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg appeared on at least one other Web page prior to being uploaded to Commons by Dgtldesigner, would it be useful to tag File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg with {{subst:npd}} to indicate that confirmation of permission (i.e. via OTRS) is required? (In looking closely at the photo, it appears that part of a letter is just visible in the lower-right corner, raising the question as to whether the photo was scanned from an existing work.) Also, for the other Xanadu House photos that were uploaded by Dgtldesigner, would it be appropriate to also treat those uploads as potentially suspect and to tag them with {{subst:npd}}? --Gazebo (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure. My comment was only about the consideration as architecture: I assumed that the picture was taken by the uploader. But if it was published before being uploaded here, a permission from the photographer is needed. However no need for a permission from the architect. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks for the feedback. I have tagged File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg as mentioned. When I last did an image search around August 21, the other Xanadu House images that were uploaded by Dgtldesigner only appeared on Commons, in the Xanadu Houses English Wikipedia article, and in this "Xanadu Houses" HowlingPixel article. It also appears that the HowlingPixel article has the same text and images as a version of the corresponding English Wikipedia Xanadu Houses article. (At the bottom of the HowlingPixel page, there is a line that says "Content from Wikipedia" though it does not link to any specific version of the article.) For the other Xanadu House images that Dgtldesigner uploaded, would it be all right to treat those images as being the uploader's own work, or would it be better to tag them with {{subst:npd}} on the basis that their licensing status is suspect? --Gazebo (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. That article doesn't respect the CC-BY-SA license of Wikipedia. :( Yann (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

File:CHANEL No5 parfum.jpg

Does File:CHANEL No5 parfum.jpg present a licensing issue? It is a picture of a perfume bottle. The label may qualify under {{PD-textlogo}}, but the stopper has a distinctive shape and a small logo is visible. Chanel No. 5 was released in 1921, but probably not in this design of bottle, see Category:Chanel No. 5. COM:PACKAGING says that the 3D shape of most packaging is not copyright-protected. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there is a copyright on the bottle or the logo, but the image is quite small and has no EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
For the U.S., the bottle is utilitarian and is not the subject of copyright. In some other countries, that would be termed either "industrial design" or sometimes "applied art", and in some countries applied art is protected by copyright, though often for much shorter terms, and it's not always clear that normal derivative rights (like photos of the items) would apply in those situations. For the most part though, I think Commons follows the U.S. situation on those, unless there are specific rulings which point to a problem. As for the logo, they are de minimis and/or incidental. Even if it was a fully copyrightable logo, the photo of the bottle would not be a derivative work in the U.S., per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. The photo would have to be focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for looking. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo sur une pochette de disque

Je veux obtenir l'autorisation pour cette photo du chanteur Jonatan Quer sur la pochette de disque :
http://www.encyclopedisque.fr/disque/57911.html
Qui doit donner l'autorisation? Qui est le propriétaire des droits d'auteur dans ce cas ?
1. le chanteur Jonatan Quer
2. le photographe Gauthier Fleury
3. le studio d'enregistrement Pathé/EMI/Pathé-Marconi
4. le producteur
Je vais vous demander de bien vouloir donner une réponse sûre et compétente dans les plus brefs délais. V2016

(Reposted here, which is the right place.)
@V2016: Bonjour,
Probablement, le photographe et/ou le producteur. Soyez patient, nous sommes tous volontaires ici. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Peuple! Qui sait exactement? V2016

"Own work - no permission by date" RFC

I've created a proposal to introduce a deletion template/category for disputed claims of "own work". The discussion can be found at Commons talk:Deletion policy#Own_work - no permission templates. Guanaco (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Texas copyright law when it comes to what is considered "public domain".

I was recommended to start a discussion here from Elisfck because we could not come to a decision on if something is copyrighted or not. This was in relation to the use of this mugshot, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tay-K-MugShot.jpg. We got in an argument on if the mugshot in question is in the public domain as defined by Texas law. I cited Texas Government Code, Chapter 552 which attempts to define if the state holds any copyright on images produced by state employees, law enforcement, etc. We could not find a consenus due to the source provided by Elisfck not being able to properly clarify if this mugshot is in the public domain. From what I can tell, it is a "public record" that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright and is therefore in the public domain in the United States. I'm looking for someone more knowledgable of Texas copyright law that can tell me if my mugshot is not public domain. The brief discussion between me and Elisfck can be viewed on his talk page, cheers. WolvesS (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@WolvesS: Wikimedia Commons does not host non-free media, so it is correct to say that content that is public domain or that has a free license can be here, while other content cannot. Wikimedia Commons, like other media organizations, presumes that content is non-free until and unless anyone demonstrates otherwise. Practically all content produced by all government organizations worldwide is non-free, so many people are ready to expect this.
In the Texas Government Code, Chapter 552 I see discussion about "public record" but nothing about public domain. These terms are unrelated, and the public record is different from copyright. In this context, public record means that the public can view the image under certain circumstances. To host anything on Wikipedia, we need permission to do lots of things including republish, distribute, and remix the image by using it to illustrate Wikipedia articles.
Often it is not possible to find copyright statements for government works, but by default, all creative works get copyright and we presume copyright protection unless someone presents evidence that the situation is different. Options at this point include contacting the copyright holder and asking for a Wikimedia compatible license. Perhaps 1 in 1000 times this works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
welcome to the "Government openness" that is not really open, and not public domain. the works for hire by states are in general not PD, even when they might be in practice. a notable exception is Template:PD-FLGov. i.e. you would need a Texas state law equivalent to the Florida law linked,[8] to codify that it is PD. ordinary custom is doubted on commons. but we have this talk with state archivists all the time they are used to the "it's all good, just give us photo credit" which is a throw back to the formalities era. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Flickr account Veterans Affairs

Are the images on https://www.flickr.com/photos/veteransaffairs/ usable on Commons? These are US government images but the Flickr license is set to Copyright. @sikander (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The artworks may not be necessary works of the USA government. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

BSD 3-clause-like license

What should be done when {{BSD|version=3}} doesn't exactly match with a choice of words used by a software project? More specifically, I'm concerned of File:Freedoom v0.1 ENDOOM.png and File:Freedoom v0.8 ENDOOM.png where different choices of words is minor:

{{BSD|version=3}}
Copyright © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Contributors to the Freedoom project …
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FREEDOOM PROJECT "AS IS" …
COPYING[1]
Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Contributors to the Freedoom project. All rights reserved. …
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"

For information, the first two requirements of the BSD 3-clause license are:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Am I to be concerned? Is there a need to create a new template such as {{Freedoom license}}, based upon {{BSD|version=3}}? And what is the difference between retaining and reproducing, if any? Is it enough to link to the original COPYING files? WubTheCaptain (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC); edited 09:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the difference between retaining and reproducing in this case comes with the difference in source code vs binary redistribution. Source code is basically a text file which needs to be compiled to work on an operating system. So you can literally copy and paste the licence text into the source code file, or just add a separate TXT file with the licence. A binary file like and EXE though would produce a text output on your screen while you cannot read the licence by looking into the file. So the correct text needs to be "reproduced" on-screen. That said, the licence provided by Freedoom matches exactly the wording of the BSD version 3 3-clause template, so there's nothing to worry about. De728631 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think one of the discrepancies mentioned by WubTheCaptain might actually be an error in our {{BSD}} template and deserves some discussion. There should be an "All rights reserved." blurb at the end of the copyright notice that is at the head of the 4-clause BSD license, as can be seen at en:BSD licenses (or FSF's BSD 4-clause). Whether or not it should be included with the 3-clause or 2-clause licenses is less clear, as OSI shows them without that phrase (i.e. OSI's BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause), but many also include the "All rights reserved." blurb in the 3-clause and 2-clause (e.g., the FSF shows it in their copy of the 2-clause and en:BSD licenses shows it in both). Looking at the revision history, "All rights reserved" was originally included in our copy of the BSD 3-clause license, but was dropped from our template in 2010 when it was converted into a multilingual template.

Technically, the "All rights reserved" phrase no longer has a legal purpose, which might be why OSI did not include it in their versions. The "All rights reserved" phrase in the BSD license is an artifact of the age of the BSD license. The world used to be divided into three copyright regimes, those that belonged to the Berne Convention, those that belonged to the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), and those that belonged to the Buenos Aires Convention. UCC adopted the © symbol as an indicator of protection, the "All rights reserved" phrase met the requirements of the Buenos Aires Convention, and the Berne Convention rejected all copyright formalities (including a notice requirement). As of 25 January 1990, when Honduras joined the Berne Convention, just a © symbol-based notice became sufficient for protection everywhere.

Perhaps we should update the {{BSD}} template, at least for the 4-clause BSD license, to include the "All rights reserved." blurb at the end of the copyright notice at the head of the license. I've started a discussion on the template's talk page. —RP88 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @De728631: Thanks for the insight wrt. retaining and reproducing. I'm dubious about the exact wording: Is that really so, or could you elaborate?

To clarify, my concern is the first parameter (1=, author) of {{BSD}} template changes clause 3 and the disclaimer to a non-exact match but in practice assigns the same copyright and disclaimer. Unfortunately, it also creates non-exact match side-effects on clause 2 and awkward wording:

Neither the name of Contributors to the Freedoom project nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

— {{BSD}}

vs.

Neither the name of the Freedoom project nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

— COPYING

In context of the disclaimer and its relation to clause 2 reproduction, OSI and Freedoom's license text talk about the copyright holders. Free Software Directory's copy and {{BSD}} template (without the author parameter) talk about the author (or Contributors to the Freedoom project with the author parameter).

That said:

  1. Because contributors to the Freedoom project = same as copyright holders in the copyright notice and the conveyed meaning is the same, there's nothing to worry about?
  2. What about {{BSD}}'s current behavior omitting the Freedoom project itself (not its contributors) from the advertising clause #3?

This was no easy question to ask correctly and I attempted to rewrite it many, many times. I think this may be an edge use-case of the template and that's what's troubling me. WubTheCaptain (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be worried about these semantics at all but then I'm not a lawyer either. @RP88: if OSI doesn't use the "all rights reserved" disclaimer I think we can do without it where it is not already mentioned. But if you believe we should modify some of our wordings, please go ahead. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freedoom/freedoom/v0.8/COPYING

 Info: I ended up creating a custom license tag for this one. Compare Template:BSD and User:WubTheCaptain/BSD/Freedoom. I didn't feel the template to be ready for template mainspace, but I don't oppose if someone wants to improve and/or move it. The files I uploaded and mentioned have also been updated to use this custom license tag, but not everything in Category:Freedoom. WubTheCaptain (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Re difference between “retain” and ”reproduce”. I am not a lawyer, but I have a guess here. I think there's no effective difference, but the different word choice still makes sense.
The text of the notice was written by an author who usually distributes that software in source code form, from their point of view. If you redistribute the software in source code form, then you typically change only a small part of the source code, and probably will not change any parts that contain the notice, so you don't actively have to do anything about the notice, “retain” just means you passively not mess with the notice. If you redistribute the software in binary form, then what you distribute will not contain most parts of the source code unchanged. In that case, you often have to actively put a copyright notice in the material you distribute. As a practical example, when debian redistributes software in their debian package archives, they usually put a notice about the copyright and license conditions of that software in new files that will be installed together with the software under the "/usr/share/doc" directory. Putting such a file in a package requires some explicit action by the distributor, since the measures for such a notice getting installed at that place usually isn't present in the original source code. So for distributing a binary, “reproduce” is usually the more appropriate word choice, even if the requirement is actually the same. – b_jonas 15:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Internet Archive Community Audio

Request for advice please — I'm looking at audio files in the Open Source Audio collection. It is recommended as source on Commons:Free media resources/Music. My question is — where is the copyright information on this site? I can find no mention of Creative Commons licensing anywhere, either on the main site index or in the individual files. It would like to use some selected files on Commons, but as I can't find any licensing information, I wouldn't be able to fill in the correct information on the upload form. Is this site actually any use as a free media resource? Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Above the file description for files that are free, among the other metadata. Not all files in that collection are free. Be cautious of any license laundering too, that collection is one of the very few where registered Internet Archive users can upload to with very few licensing choices (No license, CC BY(-SA?) licenses and CC0). (Moving to other categories requires sending an email to info@archive.org, or being Jason Scott in general. Or uploading via the API.) 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 12:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC); edited 12:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I found an example of what you mean - the problem is that most uploaders seem not to bother with licence information, so copyright info is simply missing from most files. I cannot see any way of filtering search results by Creative Commons, so if I want to find something I can put onto Wikimedia Commons, it seems I have to open each file individually and look for licence info that usually isn't there. Not very inspiring.... Cnbrb (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
yes - Internet Archive is less "license interested" than we are. i.e. they license each item, but cannot search by license, unlike flickr. given their interest in working with us, as shown by their presence at wikimania, maybe they would be willing to adjust their interface to be more useful to us. email the info address, and i will email mark graham. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Graham here... Thank you for this inquiry ref. the Internet Archive and support for queries that include license values. I will follow-up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjgraham hmb (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 August 2017‎ (UTC)

user:Markjgraham hmb thanks for engaging. just wanted to suggest a feature request. given that it will take some coding on your end, i think just a status update (or whether it is even in the job queue) would be great. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How to enter commissioned work

I had a friend take some pictures for an article and paid them $1 for this commission, so that I am the copyright holder and can release the pictures (the friend doesn't have an account). Between "source" and "author", how do I properly credit my friend as the photographer and myself as the owner/uploader? (P.S. I was going to use the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Your arrangement is called a work for hire, and it requires a written contract for you to become the copyright holder. If the legal requirements aren't met, your friend would still be the copyright holder and the permission would be technically invalid. There's an easier way, through OTRS:
  • Upload the images and tag them with "{{subst:OP}}" (OTRS pending) in the permission field.
  • Have your friend send an email with a license consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. There is a template for this and a more detailed explanation at OTRS.
  • OTRS volunteers will handle the rest. If there's any problems they'll let you know.
Even easier would be for your friend to create an account and upload the images as their own work. Guanaco (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Grandfathering pre 2002 files created by the community

Combing through Commons, I am seeing some 2001/2002 Wikipedia images. Many were housed on a special site http://www.gci-net.com/users/k/knot/wiki, from which they were transferred by bot to Wikipedia (cf. w:Special:Diff/2784), and thus marked {{GFDL}}.

This raises a few problems: we have no clear authorship or license for the images. However, it looks like, at the time, various members of the community were uploading to that site with the implicit understanding that they would not be attributed.

As such, I believe that we should have an explicit policy that images uploaded by the Conversion Script, and which were created by the community, should be grandfathered in, just like Commons:Grandfathered old files.

Here are some examples:

Please let me know your thoughts. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - the four example files may also qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. Maybe we should look at them case by case. About how many files are we talking about? - Jcb (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
At most 165 and perhaps a few that weren't transferred.[9]. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then I think the best thing to do is to make a list, then to filter out the files that are PD anyway and then for the remaining files to see whether an own work claim would be plausible. After that, we can decide what action should be taken for the (probably very few) remaining files. I saw e.g. several PD-ineligible files and several CIA maps. Those are PD anyway. Jcb (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Flickr to Commons questions

Can someone help User:Isogood in the questions he asked about Flickr to commons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ceilings of the palais Garnier in Paris, 04.jpg that are not necessarily strictly related to that delete discussion? This Flickr thing goes over my head, and it would be useful if someone could help him so we don't lose a new contributor who uploads good photos of his own creation under a free license. – b_jonas 14:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: can you please help the user about his Flickr-related questions? – b_jonas 16:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@B jonas: ✓ Done Elisfkc (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for a potentially daft question, but why are we faffing about with telling them to change licenses on Flickr or trying to prove that the Commons user is the owner of the Flickr account? If the files are their own work, why not simply have them upload it directly to Commons as "own work" and a suitable license? --Xover (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: The answer is that we don't have a standard method to verify that the Flickr account and Commons account represent the same person. We could devise something for this, but it would need discussion. Guanaco (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Right. So why go that route at all? Why not simply tell the uploader to (re)upload the image here as their own work and a suitable license? What possible advantage could there be to going by way of Flickr for pictures you've taken yourself? --Xover (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: Ease of implementation, if the uploader already has the photo or photos on Flickr, or automatically uploads there. Failure to so identify first generally results in deletion of files here as suspected copyvios due to the prior work being on Flickr.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Well, I can certainly see the uploader preferring a Flickr import iff they already have their work there. But why would we prefer Flickr as an intermediate step? And isn't suspecting a copyvio for uploads that happen to also be available on Flickr a systemic assumption of bad faith? To me it seems obvious that for all photographers that want to contribute, we should first and primarily encourage them to upload directly to Commons as "own work" and with a suitable license. If they also want to upload and share elsewhere, that's obviously fine and not something that Commons should care too much about. That Commons also wants to be able to use freely licensed content that is only uploaded to Flickr, possibly also involving a third party (not the creator) doing the uploading, is a separate and orthogonal issue. The approach we took in the case that precipitated this thread just seems counter-productive to me. --Xover (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: I believe COM:PRP was designed to protect the project from copyright violations. As many of those have come via Flickrwashing over the years, files on Flickr which predate identical uploads here make those uploads look suspicious.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg

The source for File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg is dead and I can't find it on the wayback machine. This is one of the best images I've seen of Megalodon jaws so I'm hesitant to replace it on Wikipedia. Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's safe to use as it has an OTRS ticket - i.e. the copyright holder has confirmed their release by email. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Idaho Falls School District Office.jpg

This seems to be a combo image of a logo (File:District 91.jpg) and photo. While the photo may be licensed as "own work", the logo itself looks like it might be COM:FU based upon this website. Is this king of licensing OK for Commons or does this need to be tagged for deletion?

From looking at the contributions of the uploader, it looks like File:Bonneville Joint School District 93 Office and Logo.jpg, File:West Broadway St.jpg, File:Old church p.jpg, File:Old Snake River.jpg, and File:Idaho Falls, Idaho.jpg might also have problems with their respective licensing as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Tagged or DRed. Yann (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts from WMF Legal about the BUS case in Sweden

Hi all,

You may already be familiar with the recent BUS v. Wikimedia Sverige decision regarding freedom of panorama in Sweden. You can read more of the background in English on our blog or in Swedish from Wikimedia Sverige . We at WMF Legal have been looking into the issue since the judgment, and want to share a few thoughts with you.

First, the Wikimedia Foundation’s position is that, at this time, the Foundation is not under any obligation to remove any images from Wikimedia Commons based on the decision of the Swedish Patent and Market court in the BUS case. If, in the future, we receive a removal request for specific images that complies with U.S. law (see our DMCA policy) then we’ll evaluate the images identified at that time and determine if the law requires us to remove them.

Second, with regard to the images on the projects, I would first note that it is the users on each language of Wikipedia and on Commons who determine the policies for what content is appropriate on each project. In that context, it’s our opinion that it would be good to leave most of the Swedish images on Commons for now, since the copyright status, permissions, or any applicable legal exceptions for any specific piece of artwork have not been determined yet. I think the updated template that has been added is also nice to help assist reusers. I would also note that if specific photographers are concerned about images that they have uploaded and would prefer to have them removed given the uncertainty, it’s of course fine to help those individuals if desired.

Overall, this case had a disappointing outcome, but I’m hopeful that there will be an opportunity in the coming years for the legislature in Sweden and several other countries to reconsider their laws around photography in public places. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of Dingdong-judges, allowing commercial printing no permission required and kick free knowledge in butt. Geez.... I will not delete any FOP-SWE media. Period. Idiotic judgements need to be answered with civil disobedience. If WMF legal decides we are obligated to remove media, other story. Until then I think my fellow admins will agree and not touch these photographs. Hopefully Wikimedia Sverige has the tools to lobby the right decision makers to retroactive change this nonsense. (_*_) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
They seem to be basing their decision not on Swedish copyright law, but on a European copyright directive [10], 5.3, which says exceptions are permitted for "(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places", but then it says in 5.5 "The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder." Is this something that Swedish politicians can fix, short of firing all the judges or leaving the EU? I doubt that the files would survive a DMCA take-down request, since there's no FOP for public art in US copyright law. --ghouston (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The "do not conflict with a normal exploitation" wording is directly from Berne Convention text, so that is larger than even the EU directive. But it can be up to each country to define that scope, since "normal exploitation" is a country-by-country thing. It does seem rather bizarre that a commercial use of such a photo would be OK and would not affect the "normal exploitation" in Sweden, but then a similar photo posted online in a non-commercial setting would. I don't know what the logic is behind that, but obviously the court found some. It is every country's right to define that scope for itself though, so the court's ruling is the state of the law in Sweden. The question is do we want to make this situation an exception to normal country-of-origin policy. We have done that in certain narrow cases before (PD-Art). For photos of architecture, we could definitely do that (since those would not be considered derivative works in the U.S. in the first place, so there should be no valid DMCA requests). For photos of sculpture though, that would be shakier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Treaties would normally be implemented in national laws, and courts would work off those laws and not the original treaty text. Things can be different in the EU though. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not in Sweden. In the government bill the Supreme Court made reference to in its decision, the government stated exactly that, that the three-step-test should be used by the legislator and not the courts. The court turned that on its head. According to the Constitution, "[a]uthors, artists and photographers shall own the rights to their works in accordance with rules laid down in law."[11] "Law" means an act of parliament. Courts can't extend the scope of copyright protection, only Parliament can. Edaen (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: In some countries, treaties can be "self-executing", meaning the language of the treaty (once approved) becomes part of the law. The EU directive was not -- that required specific legislation to enact its terms, though like in this case sometimes the language was copied directly -- but Berne may have been. I'm not sure if that is true in Sweden though. Most of the time, I think "normal exploitation" referred to uses of the original work itself -- i.e. a FoP product should not directly compete with the original in the marketplace (like a photo of a photo) and that sort of thing. But the language is vague enough that countries can make all sorts of rules that they like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not the case in Sweden that treaties are "self-executing". Sweden still sticks to dualism.
Sverige tillhör alltjämt de stater som tillämpar ett dualistiskt synsätt på ingångna traktatförpliktelser innebärande att lagstiftning krävs för att traktaten ska få tydligt genomslag i svensk rätt.[12]
Edaen (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Having followed the issue and read the court rulings, this statement from WMF Legal is in line with what I would expect. It's important for the community to remember that WMF Legal represents the Wikimedia Foundation. It would be irresponsible of WMF Legal to publicly describe its client's practices as unlawful even if they were. Furthermore, assessing whether hosting of these files is consistent with our licensing policy is not the job of WMF Legal. As an Online Service Provider, the WMF can and should pretty much completely ignore Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, but that doesn't mean we do.
Three things to note about the ruling:
  • The court ruled explicitly that Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author. It also stated explicitly that the users' uploading of the photos to Wikimedia Commons was unlawful. (Page 21)
  • Anyone in Sweden who does what Wikimedia Sverige did (link to files on Commons) risks prosecution and would be held liable. One cannot argue that such content is free.
  • The situation in Sweden is now much the same as in other countries without freedom of panorama. It would be odd to only ignore the legal situation here.
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly the same, since using the same picture for a postcard or a poster would OK, and that's why this judgement is weird. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the WMF is involved. The "database" in question is the Wikimedia Commons. WMF has six months beginning July 27 to take action. See Chapter 59, Section 1, point 2 here. Edaen (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of any other country with this extremely strange legal definition of "freedom of panorama": as long as you print the image, it's fine - you can sell posters, postcards, pricey coffee-table books with views of protected art located in public space and you don't need permission; but as soon as you upload the same image to an online platform, even if non-commercial, it's not fine any longer, you need permission by the copyright owner. Usually, you either have FoP or you don't have it, regardless of the technical means of reproduction. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've heard of non-commercial FOP but offline-only FOP seems like something new. The ruling was about public works of art, there's no evidence that the same conclusion would be reached for works of architecture. --ghouston (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The exception was not all printed matters. Just postcards, and you was allowed to both sell them or give them away. It is still strange but that is how they ruled in the seventies.--LittleGun (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the exception is for all 2D reproductions. See page 264 here and page 167 here. Postcards is just an example. Edaen (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a disappointing outcome and a weird ruling. But how is it possible to keep files on Wikimedia Commons that is not free enough to be used on the webpage offentligkonst.se/ without paying a fee to the copyright association BUS? Why do we not also allow these kind of pictures from France on Wikimedia Commons in that case?--LittleGun (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

1. As we are still trying to find a consensus about what is right resp. what we need to do. 2. As in France there never was Freedom_of_panorama, whereas in Sweden we thought there is. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Required reading: w:Iura novit curia which is the rule in Sweden. There is no w:Stare decisis and courts don't have this kind of law-making power. Sweden's Supreme Court has turned activist lately, it's not just this case. See this from Swedens's public service radio.[13] Edaen (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the case, these are the courts that are in charge, and who will be judging any future cases that affect Commons users in Sweden. --ghouston (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We're in unchartered waters and it makes it hard to impossible to predict what courts will do. As a law this rule, made by the Supreme Court, fails on formalities and ought not be adhered to by other courts, which are still bound by the law. Edaen (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I am not sure if this is the only place where this is addressed. I try to conclude the arguments above here, I believe some kind of decision is needed on how to handle the ruling. LX listed three facts, and I have tried to conclude the discussions regarding them. Please fell free to add arguments missed:

The court ruled explicitly that Article 24 does not give anyone the right to publish photographs of copyrighted public art on the Internet without the consent of the depicted work's author. It also stated explicitly that the users' uploading of the photos to Wikimedia Commons was unlawful. (Page 21)
  • The ruling itself is unlawful, and we can ignore it. At least until WMF or Commons is sued and have lost.
 Oppose: The ruling exists and Commons usually follow the local ruling.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose the ruling is law in Sweden. we will consider it in decision making, including exceptions to the policy. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose, per LittleGun. --Túrelio (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose, per LittleGun. JoergenB (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The ruling is stupid, and we can ignore it. Civil disobedience is required. At least until WMF or Commons is sued and have lost.
 Oppose: Commons usually follow the local ruling, also when it is stupid. If civil disobedience shall be applied, the uploaders must be made aware of that, and the files should be clearly marked. Just ignoring is not the same as civil obedience. It requires an statement and an conscious act from the individuals.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support the decision is not stupid, merely archaic, and perverse. civil disobedience is when you defy the court and go to jail. this case is a dispute over jurisdiction, and commons policy. if the DMCA takedown occurs, we can advise uploaders what their options are. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose, as they may not sue the WMF, but instead go after weaker parties, i.e. re-users. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
i'm so glad you are looking out for re-users by censoring their options, why not inform them with a blinking stop sign "not safe for Sweden". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not needed. Not being able to re-use is a major breach to free content.--LittleGun (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
i am only a little sarcastic. when a Swedish court breaches your ideology of freedom, then what is Commons' response? collective punishment by deletion, or letting re-users make their own choices? we have a decade of experience with France and the former. it will take a sustained lobbying effort in Sweden, as in Belgium, to re-iterate the law. does the proposed deletion help or harm the encyclopedic project, and changing the law? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would say deletion would help change the law. Doing nothing would imply all is fine, that there is no law need to be changed, so nothing will happen. The encyclopedic project would loose some illustrations, but those cannot be conseidered free anyway, and accepting non-free content in a free encyclopedia is, if not harmful, at least not good.--LittleGun (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This depends. I'm by no means a principal opponent to civil disobedience. In this case, civil disobedience may be costly. Are we ready for such a fight; and does WMF have resources enough to continue it? JoergenB (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The ruling exists, Wikimedia Sweden (after discussions with WMF lawyers) did not appeal, accepts the fine and have removed the links as they do not want to pay a fee to link to the pictures. As Commons usually follow the local rules of where the picture is taken these pictures must be removed.
 Support: This is how Commons usually do.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose this is what commons usually does, but commons have the option of exceptional cases. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Weak support A reasonably realistic thing to do would be to (a) remove the clear case images from Commons, and (b) to put up a "censor template box" in their place. Here, the "clear cases" are all pictures of Swedish not sufficiently old artworks, where clearly the artwork is the main object of the photo. The Swedish supreme court made some distinction between these on the one hand, and panorama pictures where incidently part of the panorama includes an artwork on the other. We only should remove those clearly of the first kind. A "censor template box" should give the information "Here there used to be an illustration, but by the ... court decision we are not allowed to show it anymore". This kind of reaction is the classical first step journalistic defense against censorship. JoergenB (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone in Sweden who does what Wikimedia Sverige did (link to files on Commons) risks prosecution and would be held liable. One cannot argue that such content is free.
  • Commons does not have to follow Swedish rules
 Oppose: Commons do not have to, but usually follow the local ruling.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support the Swedish cannot compel commons to delete items on an american server. there is still the US legal process to play out. you very well could argue the items are as free as PD art, i.e. there are local legal claims that we choose to dispute. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Commons usually follow local rules.
 Support: This is how Commons usually do.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Great! flogging dead horse. usually, but not in this case. the commons decided in the National Portrait Gallery, London case, to risk lawsuit in the UK over the copyright of scans of PD artwork. it can do so again. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The situation in Sweden is now much the same as in other countries without freedom of panorama. It would be odd to only ignore the legal situation here.
  • No it is not. Printed matter is OK.
 Oppose: Commons is not printed matter.--LittleGun (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose an adjustment to the Swedish FoP can be done similar to PD-art. it is not odd, and you are not ignoring it, rather you are making a risk assessment. and you are demonstrating you lack of standard of practice. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Actually, even printed matters is not necessarily always OK by this decision. JoergenB (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Rather than deleting the images from Commons, is it possible for them to be hidden in a way that allows for them to be restored by an administrator if this decision is reversed? Verbcatcher (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: No problem: every file that is "deleted" at Commons can be restored later (with some very rare exceptions). --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Broader proposal

Most of us agree that any kind of legislation against free photography of outdoor architecture is absurd. The Sweden case is particularly obnoxious because it specifically targets online photographs, but at the same time it seems odd to single out Sweden for "foreign civil disobedience". I suggest the following:

  • Add a feature to the MediaWiki software which allows cross-wiki inclusion of files to be disabled through the use of categories or templates (in this case {{NoFoP-France}} etc.). This feature would have other potential applications as well, such as a "family-friendly" non-Wikimedia wiki disabling Commons files which are tagged {{Nsfw}}. There could also be software support to facilitate removing the images from print copies, if desired.
  • Change Commons policy to permit freely licensed photographs of architecture, regardless of local FoP concerns.
  • Restore images which have been deleted for this reason and tag them appropriately.
    • We may need an abuse filter restricting these tags to autoconfirmed users, because the ability to disable a file on other wikis via a simple edit on Commons has a high potential for abuse.
  • Allow each Wikimedia wiki community to decide whether or not to disable such images. The global default setting here will require further discussion if this proposal is implemented.
  • If alleged architectural copyright holders have an issue, let them send a takedown notice. I'm confident that WMF Legal will use good judgment in handling such demands.

Guanaco (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Surprising outcome

I am surprised that this issue get so little attention. I am also surprised of the outcome. As I understand consensus:

  • It is agreed that Swedish court find uploading pictures of public art unlawful. However it is unlikely a user on Commons ever will be tried.
  • It is agreed that any online re-user are obligated to pay a fee to BUS or may be sued. Also this is most likely to affect only Swedish users.
  • It is agreed that normally such pictures would not be allowed to be uploaded to Commons.
  • It is agreed that there should be made an exception for pictures of public art from Sweden, and that such pictures still be accepted.

I think the [Template:FoP-Sweden should be changed to reflect this. For instance, now it says "It is not clear whether freedom of panorama applies to this image." To reflect consensus I think it clearly should state that uploading have been deemed unlawful by Swedish jurisdiction and that the third party BUS have won claim for economical compensation when such a picture have been reused online.--LittleGun (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should state that it is unlawful for the reasons I've given above. There is no reason for us to make such statements. There is a risk a court would sentence an uploader or re-user to pay damages, or even found guilty of a criminal offence. Edaen (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Which consensus? And we don't decide stuff like this via some kangaroo vote. Natuur12 (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It was not meant as any kind of vote. Just a summary of the discussion above.--LittleGun (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hej LittleGun! I agree that the lack of attention is surprising, and frankly, concerning. I do think it's too early to consider the matter concluded, so I disagree with parts of your analysis of the outcome. Mainly, I don't think there is an outcome yet. I've had very limited time to work on the issue since my original changes to the template and COM:FOP#Sweden, which were intended as interim actions while it was still unclear whether the decision would be appealed. Personally, I believe that at this point, deletion is the only option consistent with Commons' mission and policies. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, but if it is not discussed more, what can you do. And as stated above there is none or little risk for the general commons user or WMF. Only for Swedish users and re-users.--LittleGun (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not really true. In a sense, I'm not sure that any work poses much risk for the general commons user or WMF, with the exception of child pornography. A simple copyright infringement is going, at worst, to get a DMCA sent to WMF and possibly a lawsuit for the uploader. But a photo of a new statue can be considered as a copyright infringement; I don't know if this ruling changes anything for non-Swedish users, but such a work is not legally safe for users in the US and France and several other countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

How did HD actually argue?

The principal part of the court decision some weeks ago was in my opinion expected and almost unavoidable, given the statement from HD three years ago. The reason for the statement was that the lower court then handling the case decided to ask HD to clarify the disputed interpretation of Swedish law. This was (as far as I understand it) done with the consent of the contending parties; anyhow, neither party complained over the procedure. Moreover, neither party appealed the statement from HD, when it came. (Sweden is a member of the EU, and the highest court in cases such as this no longer is HD, but the European court.) In such situations, the lower courts are bound to follow the decisions of the higher ones, also in Sweden.

The only reasonably initiated person I've heard expressing some surprise is Edaen (talk · contribs); but Edaen seems to argue as if HD more or less tried to commit a w:coup d'état in issuing this statement, and that therefore the lower courts in this case should ignore the statement they asked for as being illegal. However, I think that almost any other initiated observer consider the lower courts as bound by higher courts decisions, and would consider the lower courts taking on themselves to judge whether or not the arguments in certain HD decisions are to be followed or are to be ignored because some of the courts arguments are deemed as illegitime it as a much more clear violation of the constitution, law, and general juridical praxis. Besides, HD's arguments this time really are not that unique. (I'll return to that later.)


First, I think we should try to understand what HD actually wrote. Like all others here, I immensely dislike their decision; but this never should induce us to misrepresent it. I'll provide my own translations from and summaries of the HD statement from 4 April, 2015 in English, as well as I can; but cannot guarantee complete correctness.

The court (HD) noted that it had two questions from the lower court to answer.

The questions, in Swedish.
  1. Ska begreppet "avbilda" i 24 § upphovsrättslagen förstås så att konstverk som stadigvarande placerats på eller vid allmän plats utomus, fritt får överföras till allmänheten via internet, utan krav på att tillstånd inhämtats eller ersättning erlagts till upphovsmannen?
  2. Påverkas svaret av om överföringen görs i kommersiellt syfte eller om sådant syfte saknas?
  1. Should the concept "depict" in § 24 of the [Swedish] copyright law be interpreted as to allow free transmission to the general public, by means of the internet, of artworks placed in or at public places in the open, without permission from or compensation to the creator [of the artwork]?
  2. Would the answer [to 1.] be influenced by whether or not the transmission was made for commercial reasons?

The court answered the questions as follows.

The answer, in Swedish.
Högsta domstolen förklarar att bestämmelsen i 24 § första stycket 1 upphovsrättslagen, där inskränkningen i upphovsmannens ensamrätt är begränsad till avbildningar, inte ger Wikimedia rätt att från sin databas med fotografier av konstverk, stadigvarande placerade på eller vid allmän plats utomhus, överföra verken via internet till allmänheten. Huruvida förfogandet sker i kommersiellt syfte saknar betydelse.

The Supreme Court declares, that the stipulation in § 24, first moment 1[sic!] of the copyright law, where the infringement of the exclusive rights of the creator is limited to pictures, does not grant Wikimedia[sic!] the right to transmit the works to the general public from its database[sic!] of photographies of artworks, permanently placed in or at public locations in the open. Whether the purpose is commercial [or not] is immaterial.

My comment about one of the parties.

The decision mentions "Wikimedia" and "its database". If this were from an isolated text, one could think that the HD referee here were considering WMF and the Commons database, respectively. However, the "background" part of HD's statement makes it much more likely, that "Wikimedia" here stands for WMSE (m:Wikimedia Sverige), and that the referee mistakenly believed that individuals from the general public were uploading their pictures directly to a database owned by WMSE; see § 1 of the statement. My guess is that the referee at some point confused Wikimedia Sverige and Wikimedia Foundation. An alternative would be that both for the purpose of the statement were considered as one entity; but, if so, the statement somewhere should have contained this consideration explicitly. I do not know whether this confusion could have had relevance, if WMSE had decided to appeal the decision; but WMSE decided not to, whence that question anyhow is moot. IMHO, HD's factual argumentation applies as much (or as little) to the owner of Commons, whether that be WMSE or WMF.

Below, section numbers refers to the numbered sections in the HD statement. As before, comments within brackets are mine. However, they do not represent my own opinions of the issue, just notes about what (and where) the HD arguments are. JoergenB (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I've not argued that the lower court should ignore HD's decision for that reason in this case, I've argued that in future cases courts are still bound by the law. HD has no law-making powers. Edaen (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

HD's arguments about question one

HD noted that WMSE was referring to the stipulation in the Swedish copyright act from 1960 giving anyone freedom to "depict" outdoors publicly placed artworks, and to use the pictures in e.g. postcards. Against this, HD noted or claimed the following.

  • The copyright act in such cases made an explicit exception in the exclusive rights of the artwork creators, about 2-dimensional pictures (whether they be created by painting, drawing, photography, or other techniques), mainly to ensure panorama freedom. [§14]
  • However, already at the time the act was prepared, there were suggestions that the creator ought to get compensation for pictures where the art work [rather than the panorama] was the main object of the picture. The legislators turned down this suggestion, with the arguments that the compensation the artists would get would have been rather small, and that the practical troubles in organising transference of this small compensation would be too great compared to the amounts involved. [§15. Thus, the legislators recognised that this in principle was an infringement in the creator copyrights, but allowed it by purely practical considerations.]
  • There is at present no corresponding exception in the legislation of the other Nordic countries as in the Swedish act, at least not as concerns commercial use of pictures where the artwork is the main motive. Repeated suggestions to modify also the Swedish law exception have been made, but they have not yet been acted upon by the legislators. In the discussion before the 2004/2005 revision of the act, where the compatibility of the exception and the Infosoc directive was questioned, the [Swedish] government stated that the exception is permissible, since it only concerns planar reproduction, and therefore is of little practical importance. However, answering criticism against the law revision proposal for not being in accordance with the w:3 steps rule [given as 5.5 in the Infosoc directive], the government also stated that a general clarification however would be made later. However, such a revision has not yet been effected. [§15, §16]

[HD's conclusion was that the exception in the legislation is not in itself applicable for making pictures of artworks accessible for everyone, at times and places of their own choice. Instead, such actions must be considered with respect to the general copyright rules.JoergenB (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


[HD devoted one point (§13) to argue for applying the "three steps rule", i.e., the procedure prescribed in 5.5 in the Infosoc directive. Their argumentation here is criticised by Edaen supra. I myself consider this as either a blunder, or a conscious extension of the power of the courts above the intent of the legislators. I'll therefore give it in extensio. JoergenB (talk)]

HD statement, §13, in Swedish.

13. Vid lagstiftning rörande inskränkningar i upphovsrätten ska principerna i trestegsregeln beaktas (se prop. 2004/2005:110 s. 83 f.). Detta får också ses som en anvisning vid domstols prövning av hur olika bestämmelser om inskränkningar i upphovsrätten ska tolkas.

13. In legislation concerning restrictions of the copyright the principles in the three steps rule shall be considered (see Proposition 2004/2005:110, starting at page 83). This also should be considered as a directive to court deliberation on how various copyright restrictions are to be interpreted.

[The reason why Edaen and I find this rather strange, to put it mildly, is that the quoted Swedish government proposition, in the precise place given by HD, fairly explicitly states that the three steps rules should be considered in legislation, but should not be directly incorporated into the Swedish law, because if it were incorporated, then the courts might use the three steps rule in their deliberations, and they should not do that. The reason the courts should not do this would be that this would make the effects of the legislation more unpredictable for the concerned parties. Therefore, instead, only the legislator should consider the three steps rule directly, and the courts should then follow the Swedish legislation, where the rule already has been considered in the law text, but without independent direct application of the law itself. (Caution: This is not a direct translation from the proposition, which I do not find at the moment, but my explanation of the memory I have of what it stated.) Thus, the HD referee seemingly interpreted a text explicitly stating that the legislators do not want the courts to employ the three steps rule in their deliberations as meaning the complete opposite. JoergenB (talk)] JoergenB (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I am not sure it is all that complicated. However, still the conclusion is the same as everybody above agrees upon: Sweden cannot be considered to have FoP in the sense Commons define it. That is, if someone, online, reuse pictures of artwork of a certain age located in Swedish public places from Wikimedia Commons they are supposed to pay a fee to BUS. That is what happened to Wikimedia Sweden, and they agreed to pay, and not appeal, after the court order.
So, how should we handle those pictures on Wikimedia Commons:
  • Since Sweden cannot be considered having FoP delete them (as we do with such pictures from France)?
  • Clarify on such pictures that a fee to BUS should be considered?
  • Clarify that Commons dislike the ruling and even though BUS may ask for financial compensation Commons still accepts such pictures to be uploaded, kept, and shared according to CC-BY-SA?
  • Do nothing at all?
  • Do something else?
I am still surprised that we agree on the basis, no one have yet here argued that the ruling is unclear on the possibility to publish such pictures without being liable to pay a fee to BUS, (at lest in Sweden as BUS may have problems reaching any further), but there is no discussion on how to handle this on Commons.--LittleGun (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think WMF or WMSE should appeal using the extraordinary remedies available. The ruling is obviously messed up. Edaen (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. That is not really an issue for this discussion, as the ruling exists; WMSE had to pay for reusing pictures from Commons online, and the discussion is about how Commons should handle that ruling. Also, the lawyers and advisers to WMSE and WMF have already made WMSE and WMF decide not to appeal and accept the ruling. But please advocate for an appeal to WMF and WMSE.--LittleGun (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/08&oldid=260397808"