Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/10

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

Drawing by Erland Nordenskiöld (1877-1932)

Can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons an drawing made by Erland Nordenskiöld (1877-1932) in 1912? Is this, acreditted here p. 23. According to source, the drawing was published for first time in NORDENSKIÖLD, Erland (1912). La vida de los indios. Bolivia: APCOB. If this is possible, what license template should be used? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Should be {{PD-old-auto-1923}} with parameter deathyear=1932. Bolivia has a protection term of 50 years after the death of the creator (copyright law of Bolivia, article 18) and it's in the public domain in the US as well, as published prior to 1923. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo der PBDNJ.png

This file is licensed as {{PD-ineligible}}, but I don't see how that's the case. It's a political party logo so it may be PD for another reason, but the copyright holder of the image would typically be the party itself, wouldn't it? In addtion, there are some other logo files in Category:Political parties in Albania (and its subcategories), such as File:LSHB Logo.png and File:Logo-SocialistPartyAlbania.png, whose licensing seems to be incorrect as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-ineligible}} template has nothing to do with the identity of the author. It has to do with the lack of originality of the image. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Otto Asp - date of death unknown

This map is acreditted in this article, p. 13 to Otto Asp (1905). According to the source, the map was first published in ASP, Otto (1905). Expedición al Pilcomayo. 27 de marzo – 6 de octubre de 1903. Argentina: Anales del Ministerio de Agricultura Tomo I-1. My problem is that the death date of Otto Asp is unknown. According to Domingo Astrada (leader of the expedition) in Expedición al Pilcomayo (1906), cap. X, (cited by En tiempos de Eduarda y Lucio V. Mansilla in page 144), Otto Asp was an was a Swedish engineer born in Norway who was 42 years old in 1903, he lived in Argentina and he was married. That is all the information available. The author Rubén Barquez in this paper (1997), p. 5, says that he tried to get in touch with the descendants of Otto Asp with the purpose of obtaining information about this person and could not find them. I'm confused, is it possible to upload this map? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether you can upload his works or not depends on when he died, so you need to find his death year. Since the name of the author is know, the copyright term is dependent on the real death year even if you don't know the real death year. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Influences something that the work has been done by order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Argentina? This work is part of the Repositorio Institucional del Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino under the Ministerio de Energía y Minería (verify). According segemar.gov.ar, this material is regulated by: Ley 26.889 and Ley 27.275, which establishes special rules for certain works produced by a specific list of official bodies. The Ley 27.275 say:

El derecho de acceso a la información pública comprende la posibilidad de buscar, acceder, solicitar, recibir, copiar, analizar, reprocesar, reutilizar y redistribuir libremente la información bajo custodia de los sujetos obligados enumerados en el artículo 7° de la presente ley, con las únicas limitaciones y excepciones que establece esta norma.

Art. 2
Is this relevant? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 21:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

License possibly assigned by a third party

I am thinking of uploading the photographs from here (except for the historic photo which we already have). The {{Cc-by-4.0}} license is specified, which is ok here, and the site is the Seychelles News Agency. My concern is that the photos were taken by Joe Hollins who is the veterinary surgeon on St Helena, which is very far away from the Seychelles. Can we rely on a relatively small news agency to reliably state the licenses of photographs taken by a third party, or do we need more evidence that the stated license has been assigned by the photographer? Verbcatcher (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Looking at their website, I see that they seem careful to mention the specific status for each photo. They use photos from agencies, e.g. AFP, which they correctly tag as not free, and they use photos from CC-licensed sources, e.g. Wikimedia, which they tag with the proper licenses (although the attributions are not always precise). Their page about the photo licenses explains the various licenses and it makes it look like they know what they are doing. However, I also see that they tag as CC-by a video from National geographic while the source doesn't have a CC license. Anyway, the Joe Hollins photos may be owned by the Saint Helena government and they are also tagged as CC-by when offered by a public relations agency presumably mandated by the government, e.g. this photo. On that page, there is information about two contact people from the Saint Helena government. If you want, you could contact one of them for a confirmation. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Asclepias: thanks. I am increasing suspicious because most of the third-party images on the site are licensed with {{Cc-by-4.0}}, and I suspect that they are using this as the default license if they are in doubt.[1][2][3][4] I have uploaded several useful images from this site, but only those where ownership or co-ownership is claimed by the agency itself. Regarding Joe Hollins's images, it may be best to contact him on Linkedin.[5] Should we just ask for informal reassurance, or use the ORTS route? Verbcatcher (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:John Barry Prescott (AC, FTSE).jpg

I am highly suspicious of File:John Barry Prescott (AC, FTSE).jpg. It is very obviously a portrait taken by a professional photographer. It seems highly unlikely to me that a professional photographer would create the single use account User:Marylyn Monore to upload the photo. Further, the file looks distinctly similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:John B Prescott, Australian business leader.jpg which was deleted because it is/was a copyright violation. What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like an ongoing campaign by PR types looking to violate en:WP:NOPAY and COM:L. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: and put a block on the range of the paid IP addresses that are giving us so much hassle and wasting time. I would recognize that poor example of crumpled up red pocket handkerchief anywhere – it has already been published and appears here : [6]. One is supposed to have it starched first, before putting it one's pocket. The guy in the suit (in the pdf), ( no, not you Pdfpdf but in the pdf link above) looks familiar too.. don't you think..? Pdfpdf ( this time the user not the link), is close to pulling his hair out over these paid editors. So speedy this image. P.g.champion (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"is close to pulling his hair out" - I might be if I had any left ... :( - Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm but a mere "babe-in-the-woods" in this forum, hence my posting here rather than actual action. Never-the-less, several things are unambiguous, not the least of which is even if "Marylyn" did actually take the photo, "she" does not own the copyright, so it is not "her" right to give the copyright away. The photo is one of a series commissioned by Prescott of a Melbourne professional photography company; the ownership of the photo is dependent on the agreement between Prescott and the company, and is not dependent on "Marylyn" until she provides wikipedia with some evidence of her right-of-ownership. i.e. "Marlyn" simply asserting that she took the photo is inadequate. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yann, LX, Marchjuly, P.g.champion, Jeff G., Pdfpdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfpdf (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 October 2017‎ (UTC)
@Pdfpdf: To ping successfully, you need to use {{Ping}} or one of its redirects in a signed edit, like this: @Yann, LX, Marchjuly, and P.g.champion.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Artist in Lome.jpg

I am a bit reluctant to nominate the above image for deletion but I think OTRS permission from the artist is required. Can we allow this without permission from the artist? Regards. Wikicology (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This looks OK. It is an image of an artist rather than by the artist herself so an OTRS is not needed. The photographer appears to be well traveled ( and I am not going to out who I think he is) and has only recently started to contribute to WC. The EXIF looks OK as well as on his other contribution. Thanks all the same – for keeping a close watch. It is appreciated. P.g.champion (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Also pinging @Ji-Elle: who may have something to add although it looks clear cut to me. P.g.champion (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you meant by "It is an image of an artist rather than by the artist herself". I am not in anyway doubting that the uploader took the photo. I am concerned about the artistic work and whether de minimis applies here or not. Wikicology (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I was very glad to discover this picture. Here at least a contributor had really taken into account the 2017 theme and staged in a very didactic way "someone at work". Quite different from Category:Headcarrying in Africa or Category:Pounding... I cannot see any problem here... Ji-Elle (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is not about the uploader and their description of the photo but about the artistic work. Whether De minimis apply or not. The photographer owns the copyright of the image they took but not the copyright of the artistic work. Wikicology (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A classic example of navel gazing. The artist is obviously happy with their picture being taken so will have no issues with a half finished portrait appearing in the image. What next? Demanding proof that the image on the mobile phone is licensed? WitchitaLineman (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work."? Please, read COM:PRP. Wikicology (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that Wikicology is referring to the copyright on the drawings pictured in the photograph, not the photographer's copyright. In some countries this might be allowable under Freedom of panorama. Commons:Freedom of panorama does not specifically discuss Togo, but it is reasonable to assume that the FoP rules are similar to other former French colonies in Africa such as Senegal, where FoP does not apply. In my view the artist of the drawings (i.e. the person holding the pencil) needs to license the image. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Classic Mini photos and copyright

In the Nintendo Classic Mini: Nintendo Entertainment System category, it appears that five of the photos have possible copyright issues.

  • File:Angeschlossene NCM.jpg The video display might be de minimis, though it appears to be a substantial part of the photo (the actual console is quite small in comparison.)
  • File:NCM Konsole Unterseite.jpg Some of the text on the bottom of the console appears to be standard wording about FCC regulations (part 15) and so it may not be copyrighted. At the same time, there is the question as to whether the text and logos as a whole are copyrightable.
  • File:NCM Lieferumfang.jpg The front of the instruction manual (particularly the photo of the console on the front of the manual) might be an issue. (If so, it might be possible to keep the image after cropping it.)
  • File:NCM Verpackung Rückseite.jpg The packaging is depicted very prominently.
  • File:NCM Verpackung Vorderseite.jpg Once again, product packaging is depicted very prominently.

--Gazebo (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"whether the text and logos as a whole are copyrightable." I do not understand what you mean. If the text is in public domain, it will remain in public domain regardless of any logos. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: As I understand them, those words of warning about radio interference were mandated by the FCC, and are therefore {{PD-USGov-FCC}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
To be specific, the issue I was asking about is whether the combination itself of the text plus the logos is copyrightable. (At least some of the logos (like the CE and NOM marks) are likely ineligible for copyright, and it is very possible that the text is uncopyrighted, but the question is whether the text combined with the logos produces a combination (perhaps like a collective work) that is copyrightable.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing copyrightable (or original) here: the text is mandated and a logo is habitually placed on many products. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Postcard upload under PD?

I'm helping a newer editor on ENWP with her third DYK and wanted to see if we could find a PD image of a certain horse for the article. I think I found an eligible one here: a postcard created by Dukane Press. If you look at the front and the back of the postcard there's no date or copyright notice. Due to the birth date of the animal (1958) and the owner (1924), I don't think it's possible it was taken as late as 1978. Will this pass muster as a PD upload to Commons on this basis alone? I've scanned the Catalog of Copyright Entries for nearly every year between 1967 and 1978, and Dukane Press never registered a single thing.

Also, if it helps, the card is a chrome print which this discussion says is "rare" after the 1970s. Bri (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If it can be used, this chrome print would benefit from being color corrected in GIMP, as the dyes have faded. P.g.champion (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a better image of the same postcard here, but it does not give a publication date. The back of the postcard has the text "One of the leading sires of confirmation and versatility in the nation. 13 A.Q.H.A. Champions and over 100 point earners to date." This might lead to deducing a date, if you can establish when the horse achieved and exceeded these accomplishments. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
We do want to see the backs, to see if there was a copyright notice. Some of Dukane Press postcards have notices, but most don't, and it looks like this one does not. At that point, the postcard would have to have been distributed before 1989. It's be great to see a version with a postmark on it to confirm that, but I can't find one. But... sure doesn't seem like the type of card to have been reprinted after 1989. Sure feels like a 1960s card. I can't find any hits on "Dukane Press" after 1972 -- lots for every year up to then, but "Dukane Press 1973" suddenly gets no hits on Google. I would say it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Author verification?

This file has been uploaded by a user with the artist's name. I do believe it really is the artist himself, as the same user has just written a very promotional article on himself on the German WP. Nobody has bothered to ask for user name verification there, I guess because the article probably is going to get deleted anyway.

However, for uploading artwork which may stay on Commons in spite of the article being deleted, wouldn't he have to verify his identity here in some way? --91.34.44.46 07:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably, they have to verify their identity using Commons:OTRS process. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Indian Independence Medal 1947 Court Style.gif

This image appears to have been made by cobbling together the actual image of the medallion part of the medal and something done on a graphics software. While I'm not certain what the copyright status of the medallion is in India (although knowing the region, it's probably under copyright), the fact remains that the medallion portion of the image was clearly not made by the author, who claims he's "releasing" the entire image into the public domain, with no mention of it being a derivative work or any source given. Does this not break Commons copyright rules?- ක - (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The medal was instituted by George VI in 1949. Therefore it was probably under the British crown copyright, which expired 50 years after the first publication. Ruslik (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:The Hon Kristina Keneally.jpg

I noticed File:The Hon Kristina Keneally.jpg was uploaded here in the last 24 hours, as it was made the primary profile picture on the Kristina Keneally article on Wikipedia. It is probably yet to be reviewed, but the image appears to be lifted from this website. Unless the photographer is the uploader, it should probably be removed. I note that the editor's only contribution to both sites is this photo. Whats new? (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Hon Kristina Keneally.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Article 15 of the Iranian copyright law: ownership of rights will be restored to the author

Hello. Here you can see the official English translation of the Iranian copyright law. I want to discuss article 15. It stipulates that "with respect to articles 13 [works made for hire] and 14 [transfer of financial rights] of this law, on the expiry of the agreed period of time, ownership of rights will be restored to the author".

Given the information above, can someone claim that Hossein Amanat (still alive) owns the rights of his architectural work Azadi Tower?

I am asking this question specifically because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azadi tower 9.jpg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The reversion does not apply to article 16, which I think was the reason supplied there, and the basis for the keep. Or, at least it limits the copyright term to the same 30 years from publication, not 30pma. Not sure we have a much (any) court guidance on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}

Copyright of medical imaging

As per Compendium: Chapter 300 by the US Copyright Office, "the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author." including "Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment." I therefore propose the creation of a Public Domain tag for such types of work, perhaps titled {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now expanded the Meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of X-Ray Images to further explain this topic. To me, it seems that "it can be regarded as justified to mark any work of medical imaging created in the United States as Public Domain, unless there is no a particular creative aspect about the work."
Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now created a tag at: {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Is "it can be regarded as justified to mark any work of medical imaging created in the United States as Public Domain, unless there is no particular creative aspect about the work." backwards? I would think it's PD unless there is a creative aspect, or it's PD if there is no creative aspect. DMacks (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@DMacks: You are right. Simply replacing the "no" with "a" would be fine.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
There is Template:PD-medical already. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I've somehow missed that one. Nevertheless, I think we need a US-specific tag because that determines the legality of using it. Medical imaging is copyrightable in many countries, so a tag would not directly appear valid if it doesn't mention that the work is created in the US. Alternatively, we can specify in Template:PD-medical that the work is created in the United States or in another country with applicable law. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now made further edits to the {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} tag [7] and the Meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Medical Imaging page [8]. Notably, by the laws of derivative works it would seem we can also use medical images from otherwise copyrighted works such as journals and textbooks, but we would reasonably still need evidence that each of those images were created in the United States to invoke those laws. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Informed consent

As per earlier discussion on this matter, it is still important to have informed consent for publishing medical images of individuals [9], and creative works based on medical imaging such as this one would still be copyrightable. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Would automatically including {{Personality rights}} resolve the consent concern? DMacks (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
No. Let's make sure we get informed consent before posting images likely to be seen on the world's leading encyclopedia. Certainly it'd be good to look up the legal restrictions; in the US, w:Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act implies that that act wouldn't affect us, but should tightly limit our contributors, unless they're the patient or got it from the patient. (And let put emphasis on the facts that I looked at the Wikipedia page and IANAL.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Irrespective of the legality in various jurisdictions, it is simply wrong for us to engage in disclosing personal information without consent. We don't need courts to tell us this. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ LeadSongDog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Two aspects, discussed before and worth mentioning.
  1. A research image with a verifiable release or publication by a named medical practitioner or professional organization can be safely presumed to comply with medical standards. This will automatically include ethical standards protecting patient privacy or consent.
  2. None of these concerns is relevant for "historic" images, such as those taken over 100 years ago.
--Fæ (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not for us to get into the job of policing consent forms. I will NOT send any signed consent forms to a group of volunteers as the consent forms have the subject's name, date of birth, and health care number. Doing so would expose the subjects of images to more risk not less. Medical licensing bodies take care of this already and they have both the jurisdiction plus the authority plus the funding to manage it.
  • Consent is a separate subject from copyright and should be dealt with separately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now added subsection headers to separate these topics here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Passport cover photos

Can Commons accept the licensing of File:Guatemalan passport new.jpg and File:El Salvador Passport Cover, 2014.jpg as is? The photos might have been taken by the uploader, but I'm not sure whether the imagery on the covers is protected by copyright. Some passports (e.g., File:BNO Cover.svg) seem to be considered to be government works and thus are treated as PD, but the same does not seem to be the case for every country. For these two particular passports, there are non-free images uploaded locally to Wikipedia as en:File:Passport of El Salvador.jpg and en:File:Guatemalan passport.jpg. These non-free files would no longer be needed if the licensing of the Commons files is deemed OK. Also, an older version of the Guatemalan passport has alo been uploaded to Commons as File:Guatemalan passport old.jpg, but the licensing might not be correct as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The uploaders obviously didn't create the cover images, so they should be assumed to be non-free unless the uploader can provide a valid PD tag for government works from the right country. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

British Rail

Are works by British Rail subject to Crown Copyright? That is, is w:File:Fs cent.jpg in the public domain? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bit messy. British Railways Board was a statutory corporation which may get to sidestep around Crown Copyright. I have seen reports of theirs documented to be Crown Copyright, and other publications which are straight "Copyright British Railways Board". It's possible just reports printed through the government may have become Crown Copyright, with others remaining their normal copyright (and that may have changed with the scope of Crown Copyright in the 1988 Act). The British Transport Commission before that was even murkier, copyright-wise. This site, which has some old manuals, says In terms of copyright, British Railways (Residuary) Ltd confirmed to the Society that it was 'not interested' in historical documents that had outlived their operational usefulness and this line seems to have been followed by Railtrack and now Network Rail. But, not sure that amounts to a free license. This book basically says that the original copyrights of canal and railroad companies went to the British Transport Commission, and were passed to the British Railways Board in 1963. The Board was abolished in 1993, and rights went to the British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd. That board was itself wound up in 2013, and assigned canal copyrights to the Waterways Archive, and some physical assets (roads bridges etc.) were assigned to Network Rail. And apparently London Transport material is now administered by the London Transport Museum. Everything else went to the secretary of state for transport on behalf of the Crown -- which while not Crown Copyright, would be Crown-owned copyright, and may be subject to the OGL (though would expire at normal times). According to this National Archives document though, copyright may be administered by some other places. That says that "Railway company and British Railways Board works of art, posters and photographs" are administered by the Science & Society Picture Library (which has the visual collections of several museums, including the National Railway Museum), while "Railway company pseudo-heraldic devices, monograms and similar works" are administered specifically by the National Railway Museum. Given the complexities... probably best to assume regular copyright on British Railway Board stuff. Transport Commission era stuff may be murkier, but there are also museums out there who may claim rights as they may be deriving revenue from it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially correct as far as I know. As a statutory corporation, works created by BRB are not subject to Crown copyright even if the copyright ends up being owned by the Crown. Technically, BRB wasn't abolished in 1993. Last I looked it still existed. --bjh21 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Before 1989, anything even *published* by the Crown became Crown Copyright (the 1988 Copyright Act changed the definitions). I have absolutely seen reports of the BRB marked Crown Copyright (not just copyright owned by the Crown) -- this was one. Just doubt that extended to all works -- the report in question was done by the government publishers. There are plenty of other works simply marked regular "copyright" as well. As for 1993, I believe, from reading about it, a new company called "British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd" was created, which is the one mentioned in your link. The date may have been 2001, not 1993, per w:BRB (Residuary) Limited. It was abolished in 2013, so that no longer exists either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I just nominated this file for deletion, and now I wonder if it shouldn't have been a speedy deletion since it seems such an obvious copyright violation. I am not very much in the habit of nominating pictures for either, so I am a bit unsure about where to draw the line. What do you think? --91.34.40.97 14:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know whether a file qualifies for speedy deletion or not, then it is in my opinion better to start a deletion discussion so that more people see your concerns. An admin can of course still delete the file immediately if the file qualifies for speedy deletion. In this case, I would have tagged the file as missing evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright with painted images

If I use a picture from this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Blank_US_Map_%28states_only%29.svg/800px-Blank_US_Map_%28states_only%29.svg.png and use the paint tool on that, am I allowed to upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFK2020 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (UTC)‎

@JFK2020: This is fine, as long as you link back to the original image, give credit to the original authors, and upload your image under the same (or compatible) license. I recommend {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}} in this case.
However, the original image is an SVG, and you may have better results by editing the SVG in a vector editor. Inkscape is a good choice, and it's free. SVG images are preferred because they can be easily scaled to any size and cleanly edited by others. Guanaco (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Yipstertimes.jpg

I'm not sure if it matters that the imagery was created by a yippie artist named May Midwest who freely contributed her "ben franklin smokes joint" cartoon for the poster, at no cost to her, and that this also doubled as a poster for the July 4th smoke-in, and was posted all over the USA when it comes to whether is protected by copyright or not as claimed by the file's licensing. However, the fact that artist has died and has no estate might. The problem is that if she died in 1975 when the issue was first published, then that might still not be enough time to be considered {{PD-US-no notice}} because I believe the US is 70 pma. Can Commons accept this file as licensed or does it need to be assumed that somebody somewhere holds the copyright on it. Derivatives of this image can also be found online at sites like this well before the file was uploaded to Commons, but I'm not sure how that might affect the copyright status of this particular file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If it was first published in 1975, then USA is 95 years from publication, not 70 pma.
Are you able to check if there's a copyright notice? If not, then I'd tag the file as missing evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stefan2: . Thanks for the correction of the pma for the US. I have no idea how to check for a copyright notice since there's no online source provided for the file, and I can't seem to find it anywhere else online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Since the uploader doesn't say anything about copyright notices but only that the file has been licensed under {{Cc-zero}}, I've tagged the file for missing evidence of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The poster apparently did not have a copyright notice [10]. Assuming the publication of the poster predates the publication of the newspaper, I'm not sure if a copyright notice in the newspaper, even if there was one, would effectively copyright the newspaper's version of the illustration. The difference in the illustration, from the poster to the newspaper, seems to be the removal of colors, because the newspaper is printed in two colors only. Other differences are, above the illustration, the newspaper's logo and, below the illustration, the three lines of text, which may be copyrighted if there's a copyright notice in the newspaper. The illustration is signed "P. Bramley". The uploader seems to be saying that P. Bramley's illustration was in part derived from a cartoon by a "May Midwest", who is not credited on the poster but who gave permission for that use. Or maybe they are saying that P. Bradley is the same person who they call May Midwest. I couldn't find more information about that aspect. It seems reasonable to assume that the artist or artists gave permission for the use of their work on the poster, unless there's evidence to the contrary. The poster having no copyright notice, it would be in the public domain for that reason. The discolored reproduction of the illustration in the newspaper may be in the public domain also, either for having no added copyrightability or because there is no copyright notice in the newspaper. There seems to be no evidence that, in recent years, there was a copyright owner who made a CC0 declaration. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg and File:2020 Summer Olympics Logo.png

Is there an admin around who can tell whether File:Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg and File:2020 Summer Olympics Logo.png are the same logo as File:Tokyo 2020 Olympic logo.png, which was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo 2020 Olympic bid logo.svg?

If they are, then I don't see how the same logo being uploaded (even as an svg) makes much of a difference if the underlying imagery is considered to be COM:FU or otherwise copyright protected; an svg might be considered COM:DW, but that doesn't mean the copyright status of the underlying imagery it depicts can be ignored, does it?

If, however, they are a completely different files, then I am wondering if the {{PD-textlogo}} licensing is correct per COM:TOO#Japan. The Olympic Rings and text are probably OK, but the other element seems to be an "artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation" which would be considered to be protected by copyright under Japanese law. It might be possible for this to be PD for some other reason, but I'm just not sure "PD-textlogo" is correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not the same - the deleted logo was this one. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Ruslik. I thought the logos might possibly be the same because of the very last post 'the one by Sdee) in the above-linked DR which mentions the removal of candidate city from all of the logos after Tokyo was officially selected as the host. Still even if they are not the same, I'm not sure if the "new" version is "PD-textlogo" per Japanese copyright law. Do you have an opinion on that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
It may be PD. It is always an opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of Fun in Balloon Land (1965 film)

I think why in this film is still bad, but is there any evidence the copyright status if it is public domain or not?  HarvettFox  96   10:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is a copyright notice in the film itself, it's still under copyright, and if there isn't, it would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Usually the notice would be in the beginning, or maybe at the end credits. Not sure I want to subject myself to it to find out. ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some (uncredited) parts may contain copyrighted songs such as Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, Jingle Bell Rock, etc. They were recently released not old enough for pre-1972 audio recordings only.  HarvettFox  96   21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC), edited on 06:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
So what about the trailer?  HarvettFox  96   06:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Software to create animated narrative

Hello everyone!

I have just became a Wikipedia collaborator and I am working in MOOC that will be available on Wikiversity. I intend to create animated videos to explain part of what I am teaching -- or at least trying to teach. I am aware that I gotta be cautious with the pictures, images, sounds and everything that I use that can be protected by copyright laws. This video is a example of what I am thinking of doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXijvhBQ-u8

If I use videos, pictures and sounds that are on wikicommons, would there be any other element that I should worry about? The drawing arm, for instance, or the font?

Please, I would be glad to hear from y'all.

Cheers,

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dieb (talk • contribs)

All media on Commons are free and can be used by anybody for any purpose, though some attribution and licensing requirements shall be met. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruslik0. But let me rephrase it... I want to upload videos created with the software Videoscribe, just like this video. Is there any possible problem or issue concerning uploading a video made with it on Commons?

If you use only files from Commons, you will have no problem uploading your videos. Also, please, sign your messages on this board with ~~~~. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Tks. Daniel Dieb (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Steve Down.jpg

This has me flummoxed. The EXIF shows who owns the camera and is definitely this guy [11]. The unloader could well be him and hope it is. On WP, there is some concern that this unloader (and another editing the article in which the image is used) are undeclared paid editors. That in itself doesn't bar the photographer from WC. Yet, paid editors are well known for copyvios so I am suspicious. As this is his only upload on WC there does seem much point in posting a query on his talk page for clarification and expecting a reply. P.g.champion (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Or they can be the subject of the article or one of their relatives. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Resolved

Don't know if it was the result of an an email that I sent to the photographer but an OTRS has now been received and approved in super quick time. P.g.champion (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Jimmybreslin1991.jpg

Licensed as {{CC-zero}} but there's no EXIF data or any other indication that this screenshot has been released as such. It might be possible that this is {{PD-CSPAN}}, but not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-CSPAN}} only seems to apply to US House or US Senate debates. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Themightyquill: Copyvio per https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that link Jeff G.. The file was tagged with {{Npd}} by Stefan2 which means it will eventually be deleted as such. Changing the template to {{Copyvio}} will only speed things up, but it can be easily done if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted. Guanaco (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: You're welcome, one dot would do.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco and Jeff G.: Thanks to both of you for helping sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure whether the current logo of Telford College, I am planning to use in the article Telford College of Arts and Technology on the English Wikipedia, meets the threshold of originality in the United States. The United Kingdom has a lower threshold and therefore most modern logos are copyrighted there so I would like to hear from someone who has a better idea of the US threshold. Here is a link to to the logo in question in the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telford_College_(Shropshire)_2017_logo_(both_variations).jpg Tk420 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In USA it is likely PD due to its simplicity. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Way above TOO in the UK. Only fair use possible, I'm afraid. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There is en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly which might work in this case. The file is uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, and is treated as PD. This is quite different from non-free content, and is often used for UK logos. You should, however, probably ask about it at en:WP:MCQ first just to see what others think. In addition, you should probably not combine the two logos as you did unless that is how the source treats them. It's best to upload them as separate files and license them accordingly if this is a user-created montage, especially if it turns out that these need to be treated as non-free. Non-free use created montages are not really allowed per en:WP:NFG, but when they are each element is seen as a different item of non-free content per en:WP:NFCC#3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The circular graphic looks too complex for w:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly in my opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fältskog's profile: copyright dispute? (external link)

Sorry for living under a rock/being ignorant, but recently I've been stumbling upon a site named mynewsdesk (I have read some of the discussions about it, and I'm quite perplexed) and found this link; https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/sonybmg/images/agnetha-faeltskog-10416
The image page states that the photo was under Creative-Commons Attribution in 2008, but while I was planning to upload it, I found out that Mynewsdesk had several other photos that had ties to the same company (Sony) who supplied the earlier (that is, the link) were deleted on this site, due to an unclear status. When in doubt, should I steer away from something like this – even if it's uncropped (the one I'm at most interested in to upload, had it not been for the lack of response from Sony of ensuring that it's actually the license), as to be distinct from the accompanying album cover as a press supply for her "samlingsalbum"? I would also like to hear a straight-forward answer about this...

Thanks, --Misterpither (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that lots of companies which upload stuff to Mynewsdesk are unaware that it will be listed as licensed under a Creative Commons licence and that the person uploading the stuff there doesn't have permission to license the material under that licence, in which case the licence is invalid. Therefore, it's often not possible to trust licence claims being made on the Mynewsdesk website. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
In the past I have even emailed every one of the Sony representatives listed but never received a response. I do not trust the images freely licenced there even though several have been uploaded here. Ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Misterpither, Stefan2, and Ww2censor: Sony BMG became Sony Music Entertainment in 2008, and can be reached via this form. I suggest mentioning the Wikipedia page you wish to illustrate. Failing that, you can upload to projects with EDPs, as specified at M:NFC.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Baking Championship images

Since the Halloween Baking Championship and Spring Baking Championship wiki pages have images in their TV info boxes, why was my screencap image for Holiday Baking Championship rejected? Did I not properly cite the image or something? (I filled in the line that says where to credit and what production company it's from). SunnieSkye (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The images in Halloween Baking Championship and Spring Baking Championship are fair-use images that were uploaded to English Wikipedia. You uploaded your image to Wikimedia Commons where fair-use images are not allowed. If you want to upload to English Wikipedia then see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and w:en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Magazine scans from Gallica

I found an issue of a film magazine from 1938 at Gallica [12] – it discusses recent film history and is full of various film publicity stills from the 1920s and 1930s. The information panel says it's domaine public. Does this mean I can re-use parts of this magazine containing film stills and upload them to the Commons? Arĉjo (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arĉjo: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Marx-Brothers-Pose-for-a-Publicity-Portrait-During-Production-of-a-Night-at-the-Opera-1935-Posters_i5102880_.htm?UPI=P6R6KF0&PODConfigID=8363143 says that photo was taken during the filming of A Night at the Opera in 1935 (in the US). As there is no prima facie copyright notice, that photo would be {{PD-US-no notice}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It seems so for the Marx Brothers photo, but I'm more interested in these French films [13]. How can we tell whether it's a still from the film itself, or a promotional photo made on set? If it's the latter, how can we check its copyright status? And does its copyright status is somehow changed by the fact that BNF released under a „public domain” tag? The films themselves are obviously not PD. --Arĉjo (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}}

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kiano Logo czarne RGB.png is about if is below the Commons:Threshold of originality or not when using {{PD-textlogo}}. I am uncertain, but leaning towards below. Other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Games

I'm guessing the games at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/albums/72157687136639200 are still copyrighted, but if anyone has reason to think they wouldn't be, I'd love to know. At that point I'd change the licensing on these photos so they can by uploaded to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Two games are pictured, with two images of each.
  • Count Down Space Game - this site dates the game to 1959, which seems about right based on the cover artwork and the use of wooden bases on the game pieces. This would almost certainly have been copyrighted on release, its current status will depend on whether the copyright was renewed.
  • Atomic Arcade Pinball Tabletop - This eBay listing and this review both date this game to 1979, which is reasonable based on the use of plastics and the artwork. Commons:Hirtle chart appears to indicate that copyright will run for 95 years from publication, i.e. until 2074. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

National Army Museum

Is this image of four miniature paintings from 1857 OK to upload here? The page makes a copyright claim and it's not 1 image but 4 arranged for the photograph. Or will it be OK to crop the image and upload each of the miniatures one by one? Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: In my view it is ok to upload images of the four paintings individually because each of them is "a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art". I would tag them with {{PD-Art-two|PD-UK-Unknown|PD-1923}}, on the basis that they are located in the UK. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you :)—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an US government work, isn't it?

I was wondering whether the bathymetric maps here fall under PD-USGov. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think so. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not that clear. The top left image is from Google maps. legal-notices Legal Notices Lower down is the bathymetric map which uses a google API Application programming interface and google states that by using their API (which is not copyrightable) they own everything that you download, even though -as a tax payer- you paid for the data and it is your data. Take this up with your congress man – unless he owns google shares as well. P.g.champion (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that map is certainly Google's but I see no indication that the PDF bathymetric map is in any way connected to Google. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, your right! The bathymetric map is google free so look like is falls under PD-USGov. P.g.champion (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Flag/seal uploads by User:Coliop-Kolchovo

Coliop-Kolchovo has uploaded quite a number of government flags and seals as "own work" (see Special:Contributions/Coliop-Kolchovo for reference). While some of these might be possible to convert to PD using templates such as {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}}, there seem to be many which might be protected by copyright. Regardless, it does not seem as if any of them would be considered "own work", but might possibly be derivatives instead. Can Commons except these files as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The uploader needs to identify a valid public domain template. I suggest adding {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-FLGov}} wherever applicable and probably nominate the rest of them for deletion. I'd use individual deletion request instead of a mass nomination in case the uploader can show that some of them are {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably none of those svg versions are "own works" in the sense of "not copied from the works of someone else". For example, File:Coat of Arms of Jalapa Department, Guatemala.svg looks like a copyvio of File:Coat of arms of Jalapa.png because it does not credit the author of the original gif (later png). But perhaps it could have been properly licensed if attribution had been given. (Assuming a generous interpretation of the original "permiso concedido" by the author as meaning the GFDL chosen by the uploader of the gif.) -- Asclepias (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stefan2 and Asclepias: . Thanks to you both for taking a look at these files. I also asked about them at User talk:Jcb#User:Coliop-Kolchovo and was advised that COM:DR was probably the best way to resolve those files whose licensing is unclear. Do either of you think there are other files besides the California, Florida, and Jalapa ones which might be able to be saved? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, any US flags and seals which have been unchanged since before 1978 are almost certainly {{PD-US-no notice}}. Don't depend on the years on some of the symbols as those tend to indicate when the place was incorporated, not when the symbol was created. It's really the uploader's responsibility to identify the year of first publication, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Can any image be saved? The only way to know is to do a serious research about each image and find where it comes from. It can be very time-consuming.
As noted above, all or almost all uploads by User:Coliop-Kolchovo are probably plagiarisms. Plagiarisms can be copyright violations, when the image from which it is copied or derived is not free or is under a license that requires attribution. They may not be copyright violations in the U.S. when the other image is in the public domain in the U.S., although they are violations of the author's rights in most non-U.S. jurisdictions.
Your first obstacle to your research is the fact that the uploader did not provide the sources and did not credit the authors. So, you start with very little information. What helps is that many images seem to be copied from other images from Commons. Even when you find the immediate source, you may realize that was only the easy part of the research. Because the immediate source may have copied or derived its own image from another source, from the work of someone else. At each step, you must look if there was a compatible free license.
Also, please note that you would be starting with a wrong idea if you think that you can put a "Gov" tag on some images of flags of California or Florida. It's not as simple as that. The general designs may well not be copyrighted, but that's often not the problem. What you must really check is the status of the actual source image. Many, maybe all, those source images are probably images that the artists drew on computer, probably later than 1989. As original drawings, they are copyrighted to the respective artists. (Unless they were drawn by CA or FL government employees, but that's not necessarily the case. Many images are drawn by vexillologists who publish their artworks on various websites and they are copyrighted.)
Example: In the files uploaded by User:Coliop-Kolchovo, let's take, at random really, the file File:Flag of Yolo County, California.svg. Although no link is provided, a search on Commons leads to File:Flag of Yolo County, California.png. A comparison of the images shows that, although tiny details may be different, the svg file uploaded in 2017 is obviously almost identically copied or derived from the png image uploaded in 2013. (Or both could have been copied from a preexistent third image, but that does not change the problem.) The svg is not an independent original creation derived from a textual description or from looking at a tissue flag or at some image printed in an old book. The svg is copied or derived from the preexisting recent computer drawing originally created by someone else. Now, we see that the png file we have found so far was tagged by its uploader with PD-CAGov. Does that mean that it's ok? Is this the end of our research? Ha! Let's not be naive. We're only beginning.
The uploader of the png file may have been mistaken about the status of the image, but he was honest: he provided the source (www.crwflags.com) and tried to credit what he thought looked like the author. The present state of the source page has changed since the 2013 upload. We will look at it later, but first let's use the Internet Archive website and have a look at what the source page looked like in 2013. It probably looked like this: [14] (I am taking an older version to get the original colours of the image.) The artist is credited as Jens Pattke. There is also a source which refers to the Gaceta de Banderas, which is a bulletin of the Sociedad Española de Vexilología (SEV), the Spanish Society of Vexillology (their website: [15], under non-commercial CC license).
If we now look at the present version of the source webpage at crwflags [16], we see that someone has added some information about the origin of the flag and a photo of an early flag [17].
Let's put all this in chronological order. It's not entirely clear, but let's try to make sense of it as best as we can. It seems that the first design of the flag was created in the 1930s by some people in some Agricultural Commissioner's Office (of the county?). Let's assume that this design is public domain. The Spanish Society of Vexillology published a description of the flag. In 2001, Jens Pattke created an image on computer and published it on the website fotw/crwflags. (Assuming the basic design and description of the flag are free, he could use those elements to create his new computer image.) Jens Pattke's 2001 image is copyrighted. Note that images on crwflags are not free. They are under a non-commercial and no-derivatives license [18]. You can find a ton of deletion requests on Commons about crwflags images. The PD-CAGov tag on "File:Flag of Yolo County, California.png" is wrong because the 2001 computer image created by Jens Pattke is not free. (A Commons user could probably create his own free image from the public domain basic design and description of the flag, but he can't copy or derive from the 2001 drawing, which has its own copyright.) Finally, the svg version uploaded by User:Coliop-Kolchovo can't be free if the image from which it is copied is not free.
-- Asclepias (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It was my assumption that the user had taken official drawings from the websites of various governments and vectorised those. If the user in fact has taken random images from random sources, then that is a completely different thing. It's possible that some files can be saved if a correct source is provided, but as no correct source has been provided, better start a DR and let the uploader identify the correct sources if he wants to keep any of the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Arkansas license plate images

Do license plate images created in Arkansas (such as en:File:Arkansas 2001 Hummingbird license plate.jpg) fall under the definition of "public record" in terms of {{PD-ARGov}}? My catch is the and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions part. As a separate, but possibly inconsequential note due to copyfraud, there is an ARR notice on the bottom of the source page. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is {{PD-ARGov}} even valid? I may have missed something, but w:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments has no information on Arkansas, and the template looks like a near copy of Florida's, which has some court rulings to back it up -- unaware of anything similar for Arkansas. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The information is taken directly from the Arkansas government website so I would assume it was valid. --Majora (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The page says that The law gives Arkansans access to public records and public meetings, with limited exceptions. I don't live in Arkansas. Does this mean that I am not guaranteed access to public records and public meetings?
It sounds as if the state administration is required to provide a copy of a public record to anyone who asks for it (provided that the person lives in Arkansas at least), but does the law permit that person to produce and distribute additional copies of that public record, or does the person need to ask other interested parties to contact the state administration directly if they want their own copies of the public record? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Public record != public domain. They are different concepts which do not necessarily overlap -- you don't necessarily get commercial or derivative rights with public records, for example. Does anything in their government text mention "copyright" explicitly? The wording "It is a public record that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright" is from the Florida tag, where there were court rulings, and also a way for the state government to allow certain departments to claim copyright (which they do). Where is the list or such departments for Arkansas, and where is the corresponding ruling? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A public record doesn't even have to be a government work. For example, let's say that someone needs to present a copy of a copyrighted work as evidence in a court case. If a person was murdered, blood on a newspaper might serve as evidence of something. At least in Sweden, the court (or possibly the police) would have to provide a copy of the newspaper to anyone who asks so that the blood can be inspected. The copy probably also shows copyrighted newspaper content. Although the court would be able to provide you a copy of the newspaper, you would only be able to distribute copies of the newspaper in very limited cases (usually only in connection with information about the court case). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, but most of these public record / copyright crossovers would only apply to works created by government workers as part of their duties -- any public records created by anyone else would not have the copyright affected. But each state needs to decide this on their own (or have courts rule that their specific public record law or constitution already effectively have). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
[19] gives a little insight into this. The second paragraph in the "public records law" section seems to indicate that Arkansas follows a similar reasoning to Florida or California. --Majora (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Except they rate the copyright status for each state there, and only Florida and California are full green (which we have templates for). Arkansas is "Yellow" like a lot of other states, meaning "maybe" but no concrete information. We generally do not assume PD status for anything along those lines. Massachusetts is light green, which I think we also cover. Virginia and Puerto Rico are light green as well; Virginia looks like they have a law encouraging licensing under Creative Commons (which means we don't need a special tag), and Puerto Rico has an interesting statement that may bear some investigation. But I don't see it for Arkansas at all, at least given the information at that link, versus Florida's. Not at all close, from our perspective -- at least there have been no court rulings to confirm it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Well that is a problem now isn't it? Not that that would be that big of a deal. The license is only used on 18 files. But should I DR the template at this point? It seems like we may have overstepped by having it and using it in the first place. --Majora (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) After reading all of this, I find myself in agreement with Carl Lindberg. Many governments have "freedom of information" type laws, but I think it's quite a big leap from something such as that "freedom from copyright protection". Quite a number of people as it is already assume freely available online means free from copyright protection, but Commons obvously does not accept this logic per COM:FU. I think there's going to have to be something quite specific from the State of Arkansas itself to clearly show that it operates is similar to Californina and Florida, or a specific court ruling which does the same.
Is there a vetting process for templates such as this? If not, then maybe there should be because there does not seem to have been any discussion of this template at all to determine if it's actually appropriate. Maybe the creator (DarkFrog) was just being bold, but there should at least be some type of discussion as to whether he/she might've been too bold. If the template is not accpetable, then all of the files tagged with it will need to be deleted or re-licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the discussion above I have nominated this template for deletion. Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-ARGov --Majora (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah it is the perpetual triumph of hope over experience. welcome to "open gov'ment" that is not really free. without a statute like florida, it will require a CC license from the photographer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by Kazimir Malevich by name in PD by the 2005

But recently uploaded. Delete? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here w:en:Kazimir Malevich died in 1935, so faithful reproductions of his paintings are public domain in the US, in Russia and in most other countries. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not how US copyright law works. If it was first published before 1978, or before 2002 by an artist who died before 1978, it's controlled by publication date. Kazimir Malevich, under US law, seems a potential mind field; http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/18/arts/arts-abroad-from-a-crate-of-potatoes-a-noteworthy-gift-emerges.html implies that several of his paintings were first published in the 1990s, which would make them copyright in the US until the 2040s, and it's also possible (though unclear) from w:Kazimir Malevich that many of his paintings could have been first published in Poland in 1927, which unlike the life+50 Russia (on the URAA date), would have made them copyright in their home nation 1996 and thus copyright in the US until 2023 (95 years from publication).--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? According to the country table at w:WP:NUSC, the Polish copyright term was 50 years p.m.a. in 1996 and wasn't extended to 70 years until 2003.
The ones which were first published in the 1990s are unfortunately unfree in the United States until the end of 2047. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
My mistake; I was under the apparently incorrect impression that all the EU states were life+70 in 1996. In which case, it's most likely that all of his paintings that were published in his life are PD in the US. It's still more complex than just looking at death date.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
What does "published" mean in the context of a painting? Is it sufficient for the painting to be publicly exhibited? Several of these pictures are shown in File:0.10 Exhibition.jpg, which is a photograph of the 0,10 Exhibition in Russia in 1915. Does this establish that these paintings are public domain in the US? I can see these in the exhibition photograph:
Based on this, is it acceptable to assume that all the paintings in Category:1915 paintings by Kazimir Malevich were exhibited in 1915, and are thereby out of copyright? Presumably, if we can establish that a painting was exhibited before 1923 then we should use {{PD-1923}}. If the first exhibition was between 1923 and 1989 then {{PD-1996}} appears correct, if its other requirements are met. What do we need to do to establish "publication"? Is it sufficient for a painting's title to be in an exhibition catalogue? The NYT article linked above does not say that these paintings were "first published in the 1990s". Malevich was a renowned painter in his lifetime, and it is reasonable to assume that all of his paintings were exhibited in his lifetime, at least those painted before the Soviet suppression of avant-garde art in about 1932 (see Russian avant-garde). Verbcatcher (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Everything exhibited in Russia (but not in Poland) in 1915 is additionally {{PD-RusEmpire}}--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Exhibition is usually not "publication" but can be "making available to the public" in some countries -- the distinction can matter. For the U.S., exhibition alone was not publication, but there was a ruling that an exhibition in a setting which prevented photography did not amount to publication, but the court also stated that exhibition where photography was allowed would likely be different (see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, the Werckmeister case). So, for U.S. purposes, they were likely published (given the photo of the exhibition). Additionally, several of those would have threshold of originality problems in the U.S., most likely. The one which may have been unpublished per the NY Times story was a version of "Black Square", which would be one of those not likely to have a U.S. copyright in the first place, unless there was some argument on the individual brush stroke lines being expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"implies that several of his paintings were first published in the 1990s" = now you are just fear mongering. any work from a european artist first exhibited in europe should follow the berne rules. it is a very low risk about the american publication date. do not waste everyone's time with it. we have only one DMCA with this kind of copyright trolling. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Flickerd/people

All images here in this cat seem to have an interesting Permissions clause attached, that goes against the very definition and spirit of the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or so me thinks). And they are all uploaded by the same guy. P.g.champion (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a user category, so it's not surprising that the files are uploaded by the same user. There's nothing against the license. It relates to guidelines and practices of Commons. In general, it's ok to overwrite files for minor changes, but if the uploader objects to overwriting the original files, it's not necessarily useful to argue with them about it. For a rationale about it, see Commons:Overwriting existing files#Respect content creators. Anybody can still make changes without consulting the author and upload as a separate file. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
However, the text looks like a disclaimer. Many free licences state that disclaimers, or at least some disclaimers, have to preserved. See for example w:WP:FIXGFDL. This makes it more complicated for people to use the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose this user template could cause some confusion. The template includes two parts, each addressed to a different audience. The first paragraph is a reminder addressed to all potential reusers, and the author probably had in mind especially reusers outside of Commons. The rest of the text is a special message addressed to the contributors of Commons only. The distinction between those two parts of the template may not be obvious to occasional visitors who are unfamiliar with Commons. A reader could easily misinterpret the end of the first paragraph ("... the rules mentioned here") as referring to the text of the rest of the same template, instead of referring to the text of the license, which is found elsewhere. Also, the "permission" field does not seem a good place for the message addressed to Commons contributors. The "permission" field is generally understood to be related to the license requirements or to an explanation of the legal status. Maybe we can make some suggestions to User:Flickerd:
  • It might be better to have two separate templates.
  • The reminder addressed to all reusers should be clear that it refers to the terms of the license. The words "the rules mentioned here" could be replaced by "the terms of the license". That reminder may be better placed near the license tag. There is still the problem that it might be interpreted as part of a sort of custom copyright notice in the sense of section 3(a.1.A) of the CC by-sa 4.0 license and that it should be preserved in the reuses, but that would seem to be a requirement allowed by the license if the author insists on it.
  • The message to the Commons contributors should not be in the "permission" field. It could probably be anywhere else, as long as it does not suggest that it relates to the license. An "other fields" field could be inserted if necessary. Or a separate ==section== in the page. The text of that message should actually include a line to make clear that it is a note to Commons contributors.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion with the template, the intention behind it is basically everything that Asclepias has said. I've seen multiple users around Commons use these type of templates, so I thought it was a standard thing. I'll update the template with the suggestions made by Asclepias. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please don't think that you have to say sorry, because this is with the benefit of hindsight. Foresight doesn't have the same 20/20 vision. I worked with user:Jarekt to create Commons:Credit line. Maybe we can put together another essay to give guidance on how copyright owners can point out that the original upload was for a specific purpose and the author does not wish it to be overwritten, whilst at the same time allowing derivatives. If we have this guidance all in one place, then individual editors don't have to reinvent the wheel each time. P.g.champion (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Put together a short Preservation of original uploaded images. to see where we agree (and disagree) on how to avoid confusion. The actual template and wording we can magic up after. Hoping this is maintaining the spirit of both WP and CC. P.g.champion (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
given the rampant overwriting and "image improvement", you should expect more templates like this in the future. you could also say: "please follow the overwrite policy or you will be reverted". and given the allowed hybrid licenses do not know how anyone could object. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Girls' Generation

I was checking the licencing for this photo which was reviewed by User:INeverCry. I can't find any indication of a free license in the source given. Rather I found "Copyright © Kakao Corp. All rights reserved" here. Am I missing anything? --Mhhossein talk 05:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

no problem, since the source page is http://amymen.tistory.com/981 (archived), and please see the small CC-BY icon at the right bottom of source page (html code:<img id="ccl-icon-981-0" class="entry-ccl-by" src="//t1.daumcdn.net/tistory_admin/static/admin/editor/ccl_black01.png?_version_=0984addea4a3b670031e54aea7aca6c0198d0311" onmouseover="tistoryCcl.show(this, 3)" onmouseout="tistoryCcl.hide()" alt="저작자 표시" style="width:15px;height:15px">). Kakao Corp is not the copyright holder of the image but the indivisual owner (pabian) of the source blog (like flickr/youtube).--Puramyun31 (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I could see the very tiny icon after your comment. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI: User:-revi/Tistory. — regards, Revi 02:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of New Jersey government works

More experienced people are welcome to weigh in on this discussion. Because, honestly I don't know and I would like someone to tell me. GMGtalk 23:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

section F: "However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws." [20] not even close. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia content copied into an external for-profit stock photograph database.

Someone named Paul Fearn appears to be uploading Commons images to a website called Alamy Stock Photo, without attribution, where they are "licensed" for $20+. Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2; Exhibit B-1, Exhibit B-2; Exhibit C-1, Exhibit C-2. How do we address this sort of thing? BD2412 T 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We should not automatically accept Alamy's attribution of these images to "Contributor: Paul Fearn / Alamy Stock Photo". It appears that anyone can upload images to Alamy and it is unclear what checks, if any, they make on the claimed authorship. Most of Paul Fearne's uploads to Alamy appear to be historic images.[21] Alamy has 18,170 pages of images contributed by Paul Fearn, with about 100 images per page. They may have been uploaded by a bot trawling the net for suitable images. These images in question may have been copied from Commons.
On this basis we should discount Alamy's attribution of these images. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry BD2412, I should have read your question more carefully. I see that you also concluded that these images were probably uploaded from Commons to Alamy. Is there anything to be gained by Wikimedia Foundation contacting Alamy at a corporate level? It appears that Alamy are selling licenses for material for which they do not own the copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
If it was just one image, I would chalk it up to coincidence, but it seems obvious that these are being taken directly from Commons. I picked a few more from the list, and in every instance, not only is the image one of ours, but the description copies our description or file name (e.g. File:New London Union Station after construction.JPG, "New London Union Station after construction". I do think that some action should be taken at the corporate level. If they are scraping our database for images (even public domain images), they should acknowledge that they are doing so. BD2412 T 16:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be too quick to throw brickbats, lots of images on Commons have dubious copyright status. Alamy say they are not claiming copyright of public domain images, their website was this disclaimer:
  • Our website might have some collections that include images that are in the public domain, not protected by copyright or where the copyright ownership is unknown. Content can enter the public domain when copyright has expired, has been forfeited or is not applicable. For these images we don’t claim any copyright or other intellectual property rights and neither do our contributors, we just provide you with access to a copy to use in line with the terms of the license you buy. Other copies of these images might be available elsewhere for free.[22]
All of the images mentioned above are public domain. We license BD2412's exhibit C (Commons, Alamy) with {{Cc-zero}}, which amounts to public domain and does not require attribution. The Alamy page says "Contributor: Paul Fearn / Alamy Stock Photo", but it does not assert that he is the photographer or the copyright holder. So where is the problem? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the problem is that they are charging people to "license" public domain images originally curated here. To a lesser extent, they are also copying our image names, and although these are highly descriptive, they do in some cases represent our original contribution to the works. Of course, even if they were renaming the works, I would still find the uncredited copying problematic. BD2412 T 21:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia has no copyright ownership at all, so there is nothing they need to credit. A source website is often credited as a courtesy, but once public domain, they can do what they like. They are providing a service, if you want to pay for it. In this case, the service may be collecting images so that their customers can find relevant images without searching elsewhere. If the customers are fine with paying for the images in that situation, then no problem. If those customers want to spend time finding images they don't have to pay for, then that's also fine. But their "license" is probably more like a contract, which can bind both parties regardless of the copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's likely they'll keep doing this, and they'll get away with it. Even with the disclaimer, they will probably continue to harass people who use these public domain images, sending demand letters for back royalties. See w:Carol M. Highsmith#Getty Images/Alamy lawsuit. Guanaco (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Individual photographers who didn't use PD or CC0 licenses and find their works on such sites may sue for copyright infringement. Reusers of PD and CC0 works who get such demand letters for back royalties in the mail can have the USPIS prosecute for mail fraud if the USPS was used.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
My two cents, as someone whose photo was copied (see above). It's perfectly fine with me. I use the cc0 license, which states "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." That's what they are doing, and it's perfectly in scope for this license. best wishes all, Daderot (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would you feel the same way knowing that after your gone, your descendants my find themselves being billed for the use of your own photographs because Alamy has them on file and sending threatening letters to your descendants:
“Interest on overdue Invoices and reasonable recovery costs
1. Unless otherwise agreed by us in writing, all Invoices are payable by you within 30 days.
2. If you do not make full payment of an Invoice on time we reserve the right to charge interest on the outstanding amount at the rate prescribed by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 from the date payment was due until payment is made.” Terms and conditions
30 days is not a long time to decide whether or not to pay for independent legal advice (which is not only expensive but they may not think they can claim back if you're no longer around to advise them). After your gone, they may up having to pay up a fee rather than chance having to pay more from late payments! Whilst they can be used for commercial purposes, the CC licenses still stipulates that must remain free as in beer and image libraries should not use their legal departments to claim ownership on threat of financial penalties. For those here with loads of CC contributions, designate in your Will 'now' who you want to inherit on to your CC copyrights. P.g.champion (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, give me a break. This is not a problem that I have. nor my descendants (who I know well). with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WMF has been talking about defending free knowledge. eventually alamy or getty will find another "patsy" who will sue about their rent seeking. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Scams are not merely a successful business model -- today they are the only successful business model, except maybe in China. That's normal, but what worries me most about this is the other shoe. The company cannot obtain sole custody of any particularly valuable image (where people would check) so long as they exist on Commons. So it has a profit motive to get the images deleted. Question is, will they decide to lie meekly by and let their future profits evaporate, or will they start a whole bunch of AFDs on the images so that they are the only ones distributing them? Citing their tender concern for privacy, propriety, and the "precautionary principle" of course!
The answer is probably the same as for some other image collectors who have the capital to sit on their images for a few years, so that we never know why boneheads are turning out to delete Wikimedia's copy.
In the end copyright is a slave system, a peculiar institution that is inherently violent and which can only be dealt with as such. Wikimedia is meant to be an inspiration against that mentality but it is not by itself the answer to it. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
yes, and to what extent does a zealous deletionism, that doubts any upload as PRP, that is also at Getty, and precludes any fair use that is distributed by Getty, reinforce the copyfraud business model. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A for-profit newspaper using a CC-licensed image

I make thousands of road maps for state highway articles on (English) Wikipedia and with the exception of two (for specific reasons), I release the maps under the Creative Commons license as I don't want them fully in the public domain but I want them "free" enough to be used throughout the several wikis. Xenon54 (talk · contribs) let me know about the Loudoun Times-Mirror using my map of Virginia State Route 9 (specific file: File:VA 9 map.svg) on an article about an accident on the road. [23] The map image in the article was cited as "Courtesy Image/Wikipedia Commons," is this enough attribution to satisfy the needs of the CC license? I'm not looking to file multi-million lawsuits against a county newspaper, but I would want a little more effort to credit the original author. Also, is that license I use for all maps I create appropriate for what my general needs are? Thanks in advance —Mr. Matté - En. 'pedia talk 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, it's in the print edition (out today) without any attribution whatsoever. I'd just write them an angry letter to be honest. They've got a staff of like 10 or 20 probably none of whom know any better. Xenon54 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend you use the 1= argument on the CC license to make it absolutely clear how you want to be attributed. Even without that, however, I think the CC license is quite clear that they need to mention the license and the author's name, neither of which they did. There's counterbalances of usability and simplicity, but I'd recommend just going with the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} instead of the omnibus {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}; it's a lot easier to know exactly what rights you're giving away if you use one specific license instead of several, and having several licenses can make for more loopholes for people to argue over. (The GFDL part is probably fine; I can't see anyone using it unless they're adding it to a larger GFDL work, and it has more onerous rules than the CC-BY-SA does.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages (which are licensed under the GFDL), as {{self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|migration=redundant}} along with all future CC-BY-SA licenses.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. That's most convenient for reusers if you insist on the SA restriction. But it will make it harder to enforce your restrictions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
They are indeed in violation of the CC-BY-SA license to your illustration. As Profiles mentioned, the CC-BY-SA license requires that they attribute it with the name of the original author, if supplied, as well as identify and link to the CC-BY-SA license. An appropriate credit line should have instead been something like:
By Mr. Matté, CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), via Wikimedia Commons.
As they did not comply with the terms of the license, they've technically violated your copyright. —RP88 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Your DMCA takedown request letter could go to parundel@loudountimes.com.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It could; but I think that's the wrong way to do it. The DMCA isn't meant to protect newspapers--IANAL, but the Safe Harbor provision protects Internet intermediaries, not publishers--and is clearly inapplicable to the printed newspaper. If he's not looking for money, a well-worded letter will get the online article amended and a correction in the printed paper noting the proper attribution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Ok, Mr. Matté could send "a well-worded letter" there. Do you know of any online samples of such letters?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Meh, just a side effect of our own problems. As long as we are overly concerned with wordy templates over interface design, people will never use our images correctly. We are self obsessed, insular. We are a vault of theoretically reusable files to which only we can contribute. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
yeah, it is rare that the old distribution channels can actually attribute as we specify. and we do not make it easy with a wall of tl;dr. it is a culture clash. the WMF talked about defending free culture, but i'm sure they will save the drama for an egregious case. you could try a DMCA takedown, if you wanted to escalate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Wordy templates? File:VA 9 map.svg has a grand total of 200 words under the heading "Licensing". A newspaper that pumps out tens of thousands of words a day doesn't get the excuse that they can't bothered to read 200 words. People don't use our images correctly because licenses are complex and people can't arsed to, at all or at least towards people who can't sue them into the ground.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some templates of "a well-worded letters" would be useful. Is anybody who is a good words-smith up-to it? It is difficult for many, in the heat of the moment, on finding ones images being used without attribution to send off a cool headed missive to the publication, pointing out CC and the law. Such attempts to correspond these day are by email and the staff at the other end, just delete them as a matter of policy -unless sent by a lawyer. Currently and for many months I have been wondering how to approach a Church, (local newspaper too, etc., but that's a different matter) that use WC images (and not only mine) who omit attributions. The feed-back I get from people who own companies that maintain these sort of websites and upload these images is along these lines: (1) “In the small-print of our contract we make sure that the client is held legally responsibly for any copyright infringements regardless of were we get them from. (2). If are clients receives a email questioning copyright then will simply tell them to ignorer it as another example of W:Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. What the website company does not and never says is that they don't expect the 'amateur' copyright owners of a WC images to be in the finical position of ever suing them. (3) For this reason, the web-masters can take out very cheap insurance against getting sued, who's insurance companies will quickly point out that the fine-print says that the client is responsible. ”
    Don't want to put this Church in the position of finding themselves on a three horned dilemma, where they have to pay for legal advice only to find out 'they' are indeed stealing images because the web-master is omitting attribution and they have a contract with a company that thinks this is OK and doing it on Church's behalf. So, some compressive templates would be very useful. P.g.champion (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Werner Machold

File:Werner Machold.png. I think it's a copyvio (see original in Pinterest), but I can not find the data of the original photo as to determine its copyright status. Any help? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that it is a copyvio? Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Is a photo cropped of an image copied from the internet that is claimed as "own work", even if it is a photograph of the Second World War. All other images that the user uploaded are obvious copyright violations, but I do not know if this is public domain or not. The same image is on several internet sites, but I can not get any information about its author or date of capture. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 22:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is likely PD in USA as it is {{PD-US-no notice}}. On other hand it may be PD in Germany as {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a slightly wider crop than Pinterest's out there (see here), so there is some independent source. But not sure what it could be. Machold was shot down in June 1941, and was a prisoner the rest of the war, so the photo was taken before then. Sounds like he won the award he is depicted with in early September 1940, so it was taken on or after that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Mascot Pachi greets US Ambassador Bruce Heyman at the 2015 Pan American Games (18959014963).jpg

Even though this photo is licensed as {{PD-USGov-Military}} and {{Cc-by-2.0}}, I am wondering if those licenses can be applied to the mascot imagery depicted in the photo. If they can, then maybe there's no need for the non-free en:File:Pachi 1.jpg uploaded locally to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The mascot is unlikely to be a creation of the US government. So, those licenses do not apply to it. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The White House

There are some images from The White House, which are tagged {{PD-USGov}} like this one, but per EXIF data they are NC-ND. Delete? --Achim (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

EXIF data and photographers cannot ignore the copyright law which says that works made by US government employees as part of their US government duties are public domain. The EXIF states that en:Shealah Craighead is the photographer and from what I can tell they are not a press or private photographer but a government employee. Now it's not so easy to tell given how messy this administration is, so a second opinion is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there have apparently been some past mistakes. However, official photographs published by the White House with no caveats with specific licenses against the photographs, can and should be treated as public domain unless there is a verifiable claim otherwise by the photographer. It is the duty of the White House to publish photographs correctly, and as the publisher they must take full legal responsibility if they make mistakes. In this case, alternative licenses in the EXIF data is not abnormal, and is likely to be the photographer not changing the settings on their camera or gallery software from other work. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do specifically with "this administration". The notice has been on White House photos for a long time. See also Commons:White House photostream. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful to know. It's legal flimflam of course, as Carl explains below. --Fæ (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
They are kept. Commons considers them public domain in the United States. Non-copyright restrictions apply. Copyright restrictions can apply outside the U.S. You can search in past discussions if you need more details. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
They are kept, as there is no copyright on them by law. Looking at the EXIF, it almost seems as though they are using the NC aspect to emphasize the {{Personality rights}} situation (which can apply, but are a separate right than copyright), and the ND possibly to discourage "manipulation", which in some circumstances could violate moral rights (though not in the U.S.), or be slander or misrepresentation, or things like that -- also unrelated to copyright. They cannot use copyright as a way to enforce those desires though, which is the main aspect of being "free" and Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
still waiting on the DMCA to enforce the sternly worded "flim-flam". and we will be back here periodically, as the perpetually credulous nominate based on stern letters, not standard of practice. how many files have been deleted on similar OTRS letters? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

wrong licence?

This file was published in 1960 (p. 3). Is it's licence wrong?--Удивленный1 (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The painting is probably much older. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the language of the webpage (probably Turkish), but I suspect that 1960 is the publication date of a book from which this illustration was taken. Stylistically, this looks like a reproduction of a 19th-century European painting, but I have been unable to identify the original painting. The same image is used here. The red text on the file page indicates that the licencing is incomplete: {{PD-Art}} requires a country-specific licence tag. As this appears to be from a book published in Istanbul and the original artist has probably been dead for more than 70 years then {{PD-TR}} may be appropriate. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Digital photo of copyrighted image

This file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casey_Mittelstand.jpg is a digital photo of the copyrighted image here: https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/look-top-nhl-prospect-casey-mittelstadt-cant-do-a-single-pull-up/ Is that allowed on Commons? Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No. You can nominate the file for deletion or even for speedy deletion. Other uploads by the user are probably not original "own works" either. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted File:Casey Mittelstand.jpg as a derivative work of Getty Images #691918128 by Bill Wippert. I also deleted the two other uploads from the same user as copyright violations. —RP88 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both! Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers out of copyright at the Library of Congress site

The Library of Congress newspaper archive, Chronicling America, had uploaded several newspapers past the usual 1922 copyright cut-off date. I've emailed them and confirmed that "The post 1922 newspapers on our site were either never registered or registered and not renewed. So they are in the public domain."

Can I forward the email to OTRS and perhaps ask that a new copyright tag be made to confirm the public domain status of this archive? Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you can always forward if you want to, but IMHO that does not seem useful, since the information is already publicly available on the LOC website [24]. If you create a tag, please refer and link to the public statement of the LOC directly accessible to anyone, not to a private email that unofficially rewords the information and can't be seen by the public. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok they hadn't fixed that copyright section of the website at the time. Should be ok as is then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Could this image it:File:AzioneCattolica.png be uploaded to Commons because below the threshold of originality? --Giovanni Cerretani (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The uploader said no during the original upload.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
But I was the uploader, so I'm asking. --Giovanni Cerretani (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sign in Seattle

I'm guessing that with F.O.P. being so limited in the U.S., https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/37977013111 would not be OK on Commons, but I figured I'd ask. It's a sign for a non-profit restaurant in Seattle. It is permanently affixed to an interior wall. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is so much a FOP issue as it is simply a photo of what is likely a copyrighted logo/sign. If you took a picture of the wall and the sign/logo just happened incidentally to be in the background, then COM:DM could probably be argued. However, if the entire focus of the photo is the sign, then you might be creating a derivative work which would need to take into account not only the copyright of the photo, but also the underlying sign. COM:FOP#United States might apply if the sign itself were displayed outside in a public area and the sign was considered to be more part of the building's structure than some sort of independent artistic 3D work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It's an F.O.P. issue in the sense that in Germany where the notion of Panoramafreiheit first arose this would clearly be OK. But I agree that it's probably not OK given that it was taken in the U.S., was just wondering if we might be able to slip it through some loophole... - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
If the sign/logo is going to be used as the primary means of identification for a stand-alone article about the company itself on English Wikipedia, it can most likely be uploaded as non-free content. I am not sure about doing something similar for other language Wikipedias though because their respectiv policies regarding non-free content use may be different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hexposition02.jpg seems to be based on my image

I happened to stumble across this image in wikimedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexposition02.jpg

It seems to quite clearly be rendered using the same POV-Ray code as one of my own images, which I made in 2005:

http://warp.povusers.org/pics/GobanPic.jpg

I have no idea where that Hexposition02.jpg is from, or who made it. The wikimedia page lists the author as "Twixter (David J. Bush)", but I doubt he made it. (The email listed on his page is non-functional.)

I do not recall ever giving any permission to use said image, or its source code. However, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of allowing the use of this particular variation of it. However, since I do not know who made it, or where it's from, I am a bit undecided on how to proceed exactly with this. Any suggestions? WarpRulez (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC) (actually 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

The source website doesn't seem to exist anymore, but you can find archived versions of it, where it is seen that the image Hexposition02.jpg was uploaded there on 15 February 2005. You can try to leave a message to User:Twixter on his talk page on Wikipedia, although he has apparently not contributed there since 1 January 2017. Or you can make a deletion request here on Commons, using the link "nominate for deletion" from the image description page. If you do, please take time to explain, in the deletion request, how the code makes the image a variation of yours. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
One of those works is obviously the derivative work of the other, and GobanPic seems to be more believable as the original, as it seems likely that it was described in the program the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer (POV-RAY) and posted on a POV-RAY website with source code, which was then modified to produce a Hex board instead of a Go board.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really seeking to remove the picture from Wikimedia. I think the derivative work is alright, and I don't have a problem with it. It does, however, bother me a bit that the origin of the original picture, and its author, are not credited. That's why I was wondering what the history of this picture is, who made it, and where they got the POV-Ray scene file source code from. If this has been lost to the abyss, I don't know if I'm simply allowed to go and edit the picture info. WarpRulez (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
If your image was made in 2005, it can be noted that User:Twixter uploaded images as early as 2004 (logs), e.g. File:Hexposition01.jpg. You can edit the description pages to clarify or add useful information. Try to make it as clear as possible. We'll see the result. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

File:New Jersey State Flag.svg

I don't think File:New Jersey State Flag.svg can be licensed as {{PD-self}} since it seems very unlikely that the uploader actually created this official state seal. It might be considered a derivative of File:Flag of New Jersey.svg, but I'm not sure that file's licensing of {{PD-US-no notice}} is correct. Does Commons consider this and other U.S. state flags to be OK to license as PD-US-no notice? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: "the State flag of New Jersey became the beautiful and historic buff, as selected for it by the Father of His Country, and it was displayed in view of the combined French and American armies in the great culminating event of the War of the Revolution, the capitulation of a British army under Lieutenant General Earl Cornwallis at Yorktown" on October 19, 1781 per http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/flag.htm. Thus, it is out of copyright everywhere and {{PD-1923}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The basic design of the flags and seals is generally not the subject of copyright. So the age of the design etc. is usually meaningless (and it would be PD-EdictGov even if it weren't). Each individual drawing however can have its own, unrelated, non-derivative copyright -- they would be separate expressions of the same idea. To be derivative, you would need to see some of the specific lines etc. being copied. For this reason, drawing your own version of a design from scratch means you can license it how you wish, but taking graphics off of state websites is not a good idea (the graphic would have its own, and relatively recent, copyright in most cases). So, most of the time, we are interested in the history of the specific drawing, not the history of the seal design.
In this case, File:Flag of New Jersey.svg looks to be the original, with w:User:Mysid uploading the original version. It was uploaded with a PD template, but PD-self in that case would have made the most sense, as it looks like it was self-drawn. If it was traced from an existing source, and some of the expression of that source was still left, then we may have needed to track the history of the source representation. In February 2006, it was overwritten with an unrelated version, apparently from the author of Xrmap, which was released to the public domain that way. So, the license there of {{PD-xrmap}} was correct. It's possible that was based on a PD-USGov version that was floating around (File:Newjerseystateseal.jpg) but not sure. The licensing section goes into reasons why the design is PD, but as an idea, the design is usually not eligible for copyright in the first place (and the written description in law is PD-EdictGov anyways). Making a graphic design based on a written description is *not* a derivative work. So, not sure the design section there is even necessary, though it is true anyways (on top of PD-EdictGov, the design was shown in other depictions which were likely PD-US-no_notice themselves). Then, just recently, it looks like a Stephen Brandes both uploaded File:New Jersey State Flag.svg, and overwrote the other one with the exact same graphic (and File:Seal of New Jersey.svg as well). Thus, the alternate versions we used to have are no longer available directly. That sure seems like it is based on the xrmap version, but it has lots of cleanup and more detail, so at the very least it is a derivative work with more added expression, if not wholly original. But if that was uploaded as PD-self, then then those additions are PD as well, for that reason, which is fine. The upload comments were about correcting the color of the underdress of the two figures, which was previously in error, as "underskirt, argent" is part of the blazon for both figures so the blue was wrong. However it looks like much of the rest was significantly recolored as well. Typically "argent" is rendered as white in representations, but that uploader made them and other argent elements to show as a gray (or silver), which is typically not done. So, changing all existing graphics to his preferred design is not the best approach either. Correcting the color of the one element is fine, but complete overwriting is not the best idea. It would be best to have all those representations available, as they are all licensed differently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Clindberg: Thank you bought for your replies. Carl's reply was quite informative, but to be honest a little bit over my head. Apparently the age of the flag/design is not as important as the source of the image/drawing? The last part of Carl's comment also seems to imply that it would've been better to upload the newer recolored version as a separate file than simply overwriting an existing file, right? Does that mean that the licensing of these files is acceptable for Commons or does something need to be tweaked? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Coats of arms describes it more. But yes, the general design is usually an idea -- a drawing cannot be derivative of a written description. The designs are defined in law, so they are PD-EdictGov anyways. So each drawing has its own, independent copyright. A drawing can be derivative of another drawing of course. If the uploaders drew their own SVGs, then yes they can license them as they see fit. In general, we prefer to have as many versions as possible, so uploading a new version over someone else's is poor form. Correcting a mistake is good, but just alter what needs fixing, usually -- if it's a whole new drawing, upload under a different name. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Georgie parker rio.jpg

Just wondering if "own work" is applicable for this image. The uploader appears to be the athlete in the photo, but I would say it is most likely a copyrighted professional photo she has found on the internet (notice lack of metadata). Just wondering if it is the correct licence, if an OTRS is required, or is most likely a copyright violation? Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly not easy to take a selfie while playing hockey. Photo attributed to Manan Vatsyayana, AFP. You can nominate for speedy deletion as copyvio. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
14:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Georgie parker rio.jpg (Copyright violation: http://www.gettyimages.com/license/588138712 ; Manan Vatsyayana / AFP image.)   — Jeff G. ツ 16:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting licensing info

Sorrow Brokers (6735757761).jpg claims to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, but the description says it must not be used without explicit permission and that "unwanted" reproduction and publication is "strictly prohibited". What's the proper way to resolve this? Lambtron (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these two statements are contradictory. Although the photographer put both of them on Flicker. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Since the photographer specified CC 2.0, doesn't that make the description moot? And if that's correct, would it be reasonable to simply delete the conflicting language from the description? Lambtron (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
the CC terms are not revocable or modifiable. however, precautionary people have used boilerplate amendments to justify deletion. roll your dice. or you could put a hybrid license on, which these terms approximate see also User:Fir0002/credits -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If one were to put a hybrid license on it (as you suggest), what sort of license would that be and how would it reconcile the contradictory terms in the description? Lambtron (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The statement appears to be general - it applies to all photos of the same author. On the other hand the licence is specific to this image and, therefore, must prevail. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
As things stand now, this image is useless; no one will risk using it because of its uncertain terms — regardless of whether CC actually trumps or not. In particular, it seems to prohibit commercial use and to require explicit permission for other uses (contrary to CC and both the spirit and letter of Commons policy). I still have no answer to my question: can something be done to make it useful? If so, what action is recommended? Or if not, should the useless image be deleted? Lambtron (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to upload an image under something similar to "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike CC BY-NC-SA"

Is everything on wikimedia commons all available for commercial use? My biggest concern is that people use an image of an actor with a respectable career for a non respectable commercial campaign. Example: A picutre of a public figure taken at a film event. The image is then uploaded to a porn site for their banner or advertising. This is what I seek to prevent. But it would be ok for non commercial use. If you dont have that option. What is the best that I chose under the ones im seeing here: Own work multi-license with CC-BY-SA-4.0 and GFDL / Own work multi-license with CC-BY-SA-4.0 and older / Own work Creative-Commons Attribution-Share alike 4.0 ? Thank you Ranscapture (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

From a copyright perspective, all works on Commons have to be free to use for any purpose including commercial purposes; see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Copyright issues aside, using a photo of an identifiable person for advertising or in other ways that violate their personality rights is illegal. In other words, you don't need to impose copyright restrictions in order to protect the subject's personality rights. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
And it might be a good idea to put the {{Personality rights}} template on such an image. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that it "is illegal". It may be illegal in some countries in some circumstances. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, How would I add that template, will it work on the standard photo under the name on public figure pages? Ranscapture (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ranscapture: Simply add the text {{personality rights}} to the "Licensing" section on the file description page. You can see an example of this at File:Jimmy Wales.jpg. Guanaco (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: So i pasted it in, it is giving a broken template link, i tried copying the one from the guys page you linked, it did the same. Not sure what is going on, its exactly the same. I'm also scared now that someone is going to go and delete it. Is there any note i can put in the background just for editors so they can see I have the rights to the image? Ranscapture (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ranscapture: Ah, you uploaded the file to Wikipedia, not to Commons. The personality rights template hasn't been created over there. Can you re-upload the image here using Special:UploadWizard? Guanaco (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Thats weird, i specifically went to wikimedia commons webpage first and went to their uploader. I'll follow the link you gave me. Thanks again. Ranscapture (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: And how do I delete the upload to wikipedia one? I successfully used the wizard to upload the new file to commons but if i try to replace the file on my page in my sandbox it keeps linking back to the same image on wikipedia instead. Ranscapture (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You uploaded this same file two years ago and it was deleted as a copyright violation, because it was available elsewhere on the web. Do not reupload such a file. Contact OTRS if you wish the file to be undeleted. They will typically request to send the original file from your camera for verification. Jcb (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
See also the publication on facebook from three years ago. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I dont need to see it, It is my photo... I'm allowed to use it and Ran Wei is allowed to post it, it is her. Also, there is nothing to get off my camera unless you want a broken iphone5.Ranscapture (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You sent the photo to Ran Wei, you didn't keep a copy, and that's why you had to copy this file from facebook, where you are not credited? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We've received an email which seems to be sufficient. If any OTRS agents disagree, ping me on OTRS-wiki. Guanaco (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: Thank you for all the help in figuring it this out. My next uploads are sure to be smoother. Ranscapture (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Cigg.png

The uploader probably took the photo of this, but I'm wondering about the copyright status of the display that is depicted. There's no information given about it, so I'm not sure that it can automatically be assumed to be not protected by copyright. The UK has a pretty low threshold of originality and I'm not sure if this would be below that. Moreover, the UK does allow freedom of panorama for publically displayed works of artistic craftmanship, but I'm not sure this would be considered such a thing. Can Commons accept this file as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a photograph of what is probably a copyrighted work, with no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. UK freedom of panorama does not apply as this is a graphic work. This should be tagged with {{subst:npd}} (see Template:No permission since). Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged the file with {{subst:npd}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Verbcatcher for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tejn noviolence.JPG

Can Commons accept this file as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or does the copyright of the statue need to be taken into account per COM:FOP#Denmark? The part of the cited Article 24(3) of the Danish copyright law stating "The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes" seems to mean that the work of art itself cannot be the primary focus of any photograph taken of it. Commons licensing allows for commercial reproductions, so its not clear whether this photo be kept. There are other works created by the same artist in Tejn which are also licensed in the same manner, and thus may also need to be similarly reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sadly, it does not seem like it would be compatible with Commons, given the FOP law you quoted, since media on Commons can't have restrictions on what it's used for (i.e. commercial use). — Rhododendrites talk |  02:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Rhododendrites. There are quite a number of files licensed this way which are basically the same type of thing, so it might be more than one file which needs to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Yes, FOP issues lead to an awful lot of deletions, and detection/deletion is pretty uneven. Sort of like copyright issues on Wikipedia before the bots/tools for that came along. I've seen that there are some categories for various sculptures, etc. that are continually populated and, periodically, all deleted. (e.g. Category:Cloud Gate, which I saw more or less emptied a couple years ago, and appears to need it again). Herding cats and such. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Rhododendrites: q.v. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Simpleshow videos

Ilya at Simpleshow Foundation has graciously uploaded several high quality videos to Commons which are now being used on Wikipedia. The videos mainly consist of animations of clip art. As the videos are freely licensed, I'm interested in extracting the clip art and reusing the graphics elsewhere on the projects. After doing some research to determine where the clip art originally comes from, I'm not 100% sure that the art is unrestricted by copyright, and I would like to get some clarification from Ilya. Although the videos are produced by a non-profit organization in the U.S., the Simpleshow Foundation, they seem to get all of their artwork via a commercial company in Germany called mysimpleshow. The relationship between these two organizations is unclear, but it seems that the intellectual property of the clip art most likely belongs to mysimpleshow, not the Simpleshow Foundation. As such, I think it may be necessary for us to have some clarification (preferably from mysimpleshow) that their clip art, as used in the videos, is freely licensed and not restricted by copyright, as the mysimpleshow Terms and Conditions don't mention any provisions about free licenses, although it's possible that the Simpleshow Foundation has a special agreement with them not covered in the normal Terms and Conditions.

I would like to clarify that I'm not suggesting that the videos themselves are a violation of mysimpleshow's copyrights, as I'm sure the Simpleshow Foundation has a license to use the artwork. I'm worried though that the Simpleshow Foundation's license from mysimpleshow may not be unrestricted enough to permit the Simpleshow Foundation to freely license the videos, as the license the videos are published under permits unrestricted modification and reuse, which would include extracting and reusing the clip-art. Thus the clip art itself must also be freely licensed (according to my understanding). If any of that is incorrect, I'm sure Clindberg can correct me. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested they email OTRS about release back in 2014[25]
The ticket is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Can you email the ticket to me so that I can confirm it? I've once again been kicked out of the OTRS group as of last month. Apparently they can't stand having semi-active volunteers :P Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Isn't it a violation of OTRS' NDA to forward tickets with ticket info to users not currently under an NDA? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Josve05a: User:Kaldari is staff at the WMF and therefore has all the proper NDA's in place even though someone might have pulled his OTRS status for not being active enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Ahh! Okay, carry on! :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The email is pretty boilerplate. It just says that Simpleshow Foundation is the creator and owner of the copyright of the videos, but doesn't mention anything about the clip art used in the videos, which clearly comes from mysimpleshow (a separate for-profit company). If there is underlying intellectual property in the videos that belongs to mysimpleshow, we also need permission from them, especially since the videos rely so heavily on this clip art. It's similar to the situation with Nina Paley's video Sita Sings the Blues. Even though Paley released the video under a CC-Zero license, we can't host the video on Commons due to the copyrights of the music used in the video (which Paley doesn't own). Kaldari (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Kaldari Video is difficult to sort but to date simpleshow has tried to release everything as asked. They have attended a couple of Wikimanias to sort things and worked with several Wikipedia chapters. You say that they sent a boilerplate email, but actually, they have tried to do releases in dozens of ways. The hardest part of this from my perspective is asking them all the questions on the Wiki end which ought to be asked. On their end, they have been applying free licenses on whatever is requested. It has been a problem to continually over several years ask them for additional licenses. If a video contains 1000 artworks including the images, sound clips, etc it is hard to deconstruct that into all elements and set up individual Commons pages for each one. I have some documentation on Commons at Simpleshow, on English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:simpleshow, and on English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Explainer Videos. In general, it is easy for videos to contain hundreds or thousands of copyrighted work. The Commons community sometimes will not take a single video license as sufficient evidence of a copyright release. We need a conversation to clarify policy because I do not want to turn down generous media sharing collaborations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'm not suggesting that we ask the Simpleshow Foundation for more releases, I'm suggesting that we ask mysimpleshow, which seems to own a large amount of the intellectual property in the videos. If it was just incidental use (as commonly happens in videos), it wouldn't be a big deal, but the videos basically consist of mysimpleshow clip art and video effects combined with Wikipedia article text. If the content is truly free, I would love to extract all that clip art and upload it separately, but as it is, I'm not very confident that that's the case. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Are you looking for a statement like "I recognize that each image in this video has a copyright. I am the copyright owner for all elements including the music, and I release it all?" Is there anything more to say? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: If the Simpleshow Foundation does in fact own the copyrights for everything in the videos, including the graphics and music (which I don't think is the case), that would be fine. I'm not just doing this to be pedantic, by the way. The graphics used in these videos are great and I would really like to extract and upload them separately. I just don't want mysimpleshow to come in later and say "Wait a minute, these belong to us and they aren't free!" Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: We are on Commons; pedantry is nothing to apologize for here and it should have been more thorough years ago. The only acceptable outcome is the one which everyone would agree leaves no room for doubt about the copyright. The copyright of their content will be challenged perpetually until and unless something changes. I appreciate whatever you can do. It seems like the only reasonable next step is for you to contact them and talk the matter through to your satisfaction. If you wish for an introduction then probably you should get it through Wikimedia Austria. Thanks for taking this one and let me know if I can support you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks! I'll see if I can make any progress on this. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I sent an email to mysimpleshow. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Doc James: Good news. I got a response back from mysimpleshow and they have agreed to freely license the components that they own. If I forward this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, can one of you link it to the existing ticket? We also need to link the ticket to the file pages (which I can no longer do myself due to the edit filter). Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank User:Kaldari. Send me the ticket number by email when you have it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: It's ticket #2017110410001288. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Review requested - screenshot with lots of logos

screenshot of an advertisement

Hello. I have an advertisement here which is a screenshot from the website of Meo, a telecommunications company. The screenshot contains numerous logos, some of which (like the Twitter logo) are copyrighted art and some of which are ineligible for copyright.

Could I have opinions on the alignment of this image with Commons' copyright policies? Is this advertisement sufficiently simple in the manner of a list or sign that the layout of text and images should not be eligible for copyright? There is a one-sentence ad presenting the products - does anyone have opinions on whether that seems like an uncopyrightable simple statement? There are many company logos here, some of which come with the company's own assertion of copyrighted art. Does this screenshot present them in a de minimis way? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say that logos are de minimis and the layout and short text are below the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of those logos are not copyrightable, and I think the overall presentation would support a credible de minimis argument for any that are copyrightable. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
De miniimis ≠ small percentage of the image as a whole, but weiter or not they were included intentionally and f the image can be prperly and fully represented even if the copyrighted elements are removed - making this image not de minims. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/10&oldid=311291210"